2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Supporters, surely you agree that...
It ends after everyones had a chance to vote. Its going to be up to the Democratic party, all of the delegates, most particularly those who are still uncommitted, to make their determination as to who they think would be the best president and the better candidate.
Super-delegates are there for a purpose to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President.
Super-delegates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds. They can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no guarantee and in fact, its equally true for pledged delegates for most states.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)The one who has been shown by surveys to consistently beat the opposition.
The one most regarded as honest.
The one who supports the 99%.
These, I'm sure, are what supporters agree are important matters.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Or else we can have a monarchy based on primogeniture.
djean111
(14,255 posts)who stand to curry many favors from Hillary? Who may represent firms who have donated heavily to Hillary?
I doubt the superdelegates who are lobbyists are going to be fair or logical - if they were going to be fair and logical, they would not have pledged to Hillary before a single fucking vote was cast.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)Which ones are paid lobbyists? What do they lobby for. The Sierra club has lobbyists as do labor unions and a host of groups.
Here is a list of 2016 superdelegates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
Point out which ones are the bad guys.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)necessary. The Google site search bar at the top of this page is your friend.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)Along with a slew of other allegations that keep popping up with no proof.
What someone writes on a message board may be good enough evidence for you, it isn't for me.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Thats at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
And 41 lobbyist superdelegates, almost six in 10 of all lobbyist superdelegates, have already committed to supporting Clinton. A third havent yet revealed a preference
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reason-dozens-lobbyists-democratic-presidential-delegates/story?id=37289507
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)lobbyist are or what they lobbied for. It also doesn't say anything about why they were selected to be superdelegates. Your infrence that they were selected because they are lobbyists is disingenuous at best, an insult at worst.
Again, here are the list of superdelegates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016
Which ones are the bad guys.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)I went through that list. Every entry is followed by Gov, Sen, Rep, DNC, or DPL.
Looks to me like you fell for a media troll. Didn't your mama tell you to never trust the media?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)There is another word for speaking something that lacks truth, but that is the less rude now common term for when Hillary or Trump do the same.
I really don;'t have time to spend with misinformation specialists, so I will simply put you on ignore saing you from the trouble of using untrue statements on one that will no longer see them.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)bias confirmation. Are we even now or should I call you more names?
The ABC article is a troll. It highlights lobbyist but doesn't mention every super delegate was chosen for other reasons. It also doesn't say what those people lobby for.
Are we republicans to demonize people just because of the label given them by the media?
You also are a poor writer.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)After a bit I found a partial list. Here's one
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheens firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshires Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Is this one of the lobbyists you don't like? I gotta say the editorializing by the reporter is standard fare.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)will vote for who has the most pledged delegates.
That will be Hillary since she has a
300 delegate lead and 3 million more votes.
Bernis can't make up the delegate gap.
The unpledged delegates aren't going to give it to Bernie
when he trails badly in pledged delegates and votes.
They won't buy into the argument that the person who didn't win is the most electable.
pandr32
(11,639 posts)Unfortunately for Bernie, the rules haven't changed, nor will he be able to change them, since before he signed on to run as a member of the Democratic Party. If he didn't agree with the rules than he shouldn't have signed on.
stone space
(6,498 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm feeling better about that than at any time of this process.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)The candidate with the most pledged delegates and popular votes should be the winner, whomever he or she might be.
I dare the Democratic party to steal the election from women and people of color. Those are the people that have given Hillary Clinton her 3,000,000 vote margin of victory.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)"Dorothy! Help me out here! Is this bargaining?"
Is it "spamming" a forum for the same person to post the exact same thing more than once? (Just asking.)
masmdu
(2,536 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)The Vermont independent is 3,000,000 votes and 300 pledged delegates behind. That is a huge difference.
masmdu
(2,536 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I agree that in a close race where each candidate can make a compelling argument why they were the winner the Super Delegates should have a role. However when one candidate is getting trounced by 3,000, 000 popular votes it is only in a parallel universe can someone say the race is close.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)went about 76% for Sanders. If the entire state had voted similarly, the vote count for Sanders would have been considerably higher. If you figured in all caucus states, Clinton's lead might have been marginal at best.
Now I too want to eliminate caucuses. But they exist and that decreases the votes in caucus states. So please drop the total votes from your argument. I agree that Clinton has a big delegate lead. But there are mathematically enough delegates in the remaining states to allow Sanders an opportunity. So let's see how the remaining primaries go.
Peace.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)The 3,000,000 popular vote lead includes caucus votes. Her primary popular vote lead is near 3,200,000. Statisticians have went back and apportioned the popular votes from caucuses. It only decreases Clinton's popular vote margin by less than 200,000 votes.
That makes sense because outside of Washington caucus states are freaking tiny, i.e. sparsely populated- Utah, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Hawaii, Idaho , Alaska, et cetera.
If you want I will find the citation.
Citation found-
Despite the suspicions of the Sanders supporter, the fact that caucus results are not included in the popular vote tally does not appear to make much of a difference in the final result. Despite overwhelming victories in caucus states such as Washington and Maine, Sanders gains only about 130,000 votes. That means Clinton is ahead by 2.4 million votes, rather than 2.5 million votes. Given rounding and the fact that caucus numbers are only estimates the difference is slight enough that Clintons claim, made before the Wisconsin vote, earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/
And that was published before the Vermont independent was walloped in larger states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
This is just common sense. Sanders has got walloped in densely populated states like FL, TX, NY, NC, PA, GA, OH, and VA. Sanders has walloped Clinton in sparsely populated caucus states like UT, KS, NE, and AL.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)I can live with that. Thanks.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I can live with that. Thanks.
At the time of the article Sanders was approximately 2,400,000 votes behind.Since the cited article was published there were primaries in populous states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York where the Vermont independent was obliterated.
In fact, beside Washington and the miracle in Michigan where the Vermont independent eked out a win he wins states where hardly anybody lives.
masmdu
(2,536 posts)from an interview from, as best I can tell, around May 7, 2008. I did the transcription and added emphasis.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: How does this end, and when?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think, Brian, it ends after everyones had a chance to vote,
after we have decided how were going to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, which
I hope happens on May 31st. We have less than three weeks to go until everyones had
a chance to be heard. And then its going to be up to the Democratic party, all of the
delegates, ah, most particularly those who are still uncommitted, ah, to make their
determination as to who they think would be the best president and the better candidate.
But at some point, well know who has 2,210 delegates. I think well have a nominee, um,
I really believe that, but, again, well know a lot more on June 4th and, uh, maybe I just have,
ah, more patience than, ah, the average person these days but, ah, for me its ah, a privilege
and a joy to travel around our country to make my case to, ah, people from one coast to the
other and, ah, to ah, continue to ah , you know, work as hard as I can to win this nomination
and thats what I intend to do and, you know, well get to, ah, June the 4th, ah, after the last
votes are cast on June the 3rd and I think well have a better idea about where we stand.
BW: For you to be the nominee it would take a wholesale shift of ah, super-delegates,
in effect, overturning, um, the pledged delegates and those individual state elections.
Would you be comfortable with that?
HC: Well, I think that, ah, the super-delegates are there for a purpose, that is to, ah,
determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President. Ah,
super-delegates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, ah, they
can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no , ah, guarantee and in fact,
its equally true for pledged delegates for most states. Ah, obviously people are going to
look at the results, but I think that its also important to look at where the delegates came
from, ah, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of, ah, ah,
outcomes were, who has a, a bigger base to build an electoral majority on. But at the end
of the day, Brian, you know, maybe its because we live in such a, a media bubble and its
24-7 and theres such an intense interest in this campaignEverybody should just take a
deep breath. Were gonna know a lot more in about three weeks than we do right now and
and that is More than enough time for us to unify our party for us to be, you know, absolutely
committed to ah, ah winning in November and I, I believe thats whats going to happen.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I suspect that you really don't like the democratic process. Don't think Sanders should have challenged "the chosen one." Just let Goldman-Sachs pick the winner right? And I get why people side with the Goldman-Sachs, Wall Street and Koch Bros side. Just want to be on the winning side. Maybe the Rich Fat Cats will like you.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bernie should stay till the last vote is counted.
So that folks like you know he lost.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)but who has the best chance of beating REPUBLICANS in November.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)than about who wins in Nov. They think that because they fall in line the Left will also. They think the Left will sell their souls but hate to break it to them, Homey don't play that game." l
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... that polls pitting Dems v Repubs at this point are meaningless.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Ted Kennedy tried to flip pledged delegates at the 1980 Democratic Convention and failed miserably. And there was infinitely more love for the brother of the martyred Democratic president and senator among Democrats than there ever was for the Vermont independent.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Hillary is going to be the nominee. Superdelegates are not going to switch their votes to the candidate with lower popular vote and pledged delegate totals. Not going to happen.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,540 posts)that if the candidate's positions were reversed and Bernie had more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Hillary and she tried to bargain with super delegates to flip their votes you would be having a hemmorage of green paint right about now.
By all means, let the vote continue, but there is no longer a path to victory for Bernie.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Evelyn Calgary 20 minutes ago
Whenever I am looking for faulty arguments on either side of an issue I try doing a role-reversal. I tried to imagine Sec. Clinton making the same argument after losing that Sen. Sanders is now putting forward. Paragraph 3 would read like this:
Hilary Clinton dismissed Saunders victories driven by black voters as products of the conservative Deep South; she suggested that her defeat in New York was unfair because it was a closed primary; then, with the big loss in the mid-Atlantic primaries, she has said superdelegates should choose her despite a 3 million vote deficit.
I wonder how that would have gone over?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/bernies-bad-end/
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the last state votes?
pampango
(24,692 posts)should go with the pledged delegate leader and not exercise their own judgement "to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)agree that the Super Delegates from the State of Washington should support Sanders.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Jeff Weaver said that caucuses are not democratic per an earlier interview with Maddow.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Yes WA was a caucaus state there was only 26,300 raw votes and Bernie won by 12,019 votes for a 72% win. However, to put that in perspective she won Illinois by less than 1% which was 35,000 raw votes. (Estimated) Caucauses are less democratic because it makes it harder for people to vote. For example, the WA caucaus took about 5 hours long, this kind of disporportionately effects certain people like maybe finding someone for childcare.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)How can we factor in that unfortunate truth into the delegate allocation?
Geez, this is getting ridiculous.
Supers can vote how they want, not according to Bernie's "entitlement."
They'll vote on the first ballot for the candidate with the most popular votes and the most pledged delegates. And that's Clinton.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sanders and all of the Washington super-duper-delegates support Clinton. They were bought with campaign cash.
pampango
(24,692 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)msongs
(67,496 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)It was over in early March and Hillary should've already shifted to the GE.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Bernie has every right to stay in until the convention. The Super Delegates have every right to support him if they decide that he would be a better nominee. Sanders has every right to use the rules of the party to try and win, and the same is true for Clinton.
The problem with Sanders winning with Super Delegates, though, is twofold.
First, it undermines his claim of revolution. If the party insiders are placing the crown on your head, then it isn't a coupe, it means you've joined forces. This would come at a cost, and I am interested in wondering how Sanders supporters would feel about what Sanders has to compromise away in order to get the nomination. After all, they simply aren't going to give it to him for nothing.
Second, the chances of him being successful through these means is close to zero. Unless Hillary has some crazy sex scandal or something that would kill her chances in the General Election, she has the loyalty of the insiders already. That is why they all flocked to her early on. Some may remain undeclared until the voting is done out of respect for the voters. However, there is zero reason not to believe that she will not capture the vast and overwhelming majority of Super Delegates. There is no clear plan from the Sanders camp on how they intend to persuade them, which goes back to the end of my first point.
So, Sanders is free to do whatever he wants, just as Clinton is free to do whatever she wants. However, I would argue that Sanders is actively pissing away whatever leverage he could have over Clinton and the convention. There are things he could have done, and may still be able to do, that will further the liberal agenda and place him in a greater position of power in the Senate. If I were advising Sanders, my advice to him would be to use whatever power he has to gain as much leverage and power that he can, in order to push the party further to the left.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Anything else is theft and I would not vote for the one who steals it from her.
I hope this makes my position clear.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)jamese777
(546 posts)CNN poll: Americans agree Clinton and Trump headed for a faceoff
(CNN)Americans don't agree on much in politics these days, but a new poll finds broad majorities in agreement that the front-runners for the Republican and Democratic nominations for president will wind up the winners in the end.
According to a new CNN/ORC poll out Monday, 84% of voters nationwide think Donald Trump will lead the Republican ticket in November, while 85% say the same about Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
But the sense of inevitability hasn't boosted their support among their own parties. Each has the backing of about half of voters: Clinton is the choice of 51% of Democratic voters, while 49% of Republican voters say they would prefer Trump to be their nominee. ...
On the Democratic side, 51% say Clinton is their top choice for the nomination, 43% Sanders, that's about the same as in March. And enthusiasm for a Clinton candidacy has grown as her chances of winning enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee have increased. In the new poll, 41% say they would be enthusiastic about her candidacy, up from 34% in March.
But more see the Democratic Party as divided now than said so in March. Overall, 69% say the party is split, up from 59% in March. Nearly a quarter now say the Democratic Party is likely to remain divided through November, up 8 points from 15% in March. Sanders' backers are more likely to say the Party will remain divided, 31% say so vs. 15% among Clinton supporters.
N.Y. to Paris
(110 posts)quite honestly, that's what I see on Democratic "Battleground" these days....
Call me crazy, but for people that are so sure SHE has already won... they sure
do spend a lot of time and ink, on how Bernie and his supporters should; and how
he can never win, and why doesn't he just go away? he has no chance...and what's
up with his wife???
sorry, but it's politics and anything can happen...anything....
and I guess, the thing that really amazes me about her the most,
is that even though she KNOWS she's a scandal magnet....(I'm so relieved he isn't) is
if she gets in, they'll be doing everything they can, to get her out....and yet, she wants
it so badly,......"isn't it time we had a woman president!!" (no, don't bother going there,
I would've voted for Liz in a New York Second)
that she's willing to drag the entire country through a living, breathing...inescapable
hell....for 4 to 8 years....so much for moving the country forward....oh, that's right..
we must fear our overlords.....
Thank you masmdu, this place has been insufferable lately.....be well!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)accused of basically being bribed by Hillary already? Why do you want him to humiliate himself like that?