and here we are again circling right back to the beginning....

[DLCWIdem]

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Now that the election fraud and conspiracy theories seem to be dying down (somewhat) from the Bernie Bros and Sanders himself has stopped implying malfeasance we come back to his assertion that the process is rigged because of super delegates. Which of course he needs to overturn the will of the voters, but somehow doesn't see the hypocrisy. So lets examine his claim that starting out HRC had an advantage because the super delegates were already in her corner. While he is right in saying that she had super delegates, what is forgotten was that by mid March after she won that pledged delegate lead, the news media started separating pledged delegates from super delegates in the total count. Furthermore, DWS told the media to stop counting super delegates. Any supposed advantage of knowing who the super delegates were supporting should have been clearly over shadowed by the her pledged lead. The media, however, kept on portraying that she was winning only because of the super delegates. It was not until HRC was interrupted by the Bernie bros in her event when she said she was ahead in votes that the media started portraying the true situation, that Hillary was ahead in pledged delegates, and that it had been fairly early in the primary process when she developed that pledge delegate lead. Where was this rigging, then.

[George II]

1. Okay, let's do away with the superdelegates. That would formally clinch Clinton's nomination...

...long before the convention.

He Bernie, you ain't flipping any pledged delegates.

[DLCWIdem]

2. yes she hasn't needed them for months. MSNBC has separated the two counts for a while now.

It was just perception that she was ahead just because of the supers. After that Bernie bro interruption the media could no longer deny it.

[procon]

3. Why do you belive that they aren't separate?

They are indeed two separate categories of delegates, they cannot be bypassed, and both count toward the total needed. The two are not interchangeable, and each is acquired by different means, and for separate purposes. Your assertion does not match the math. Its not merely a perception that Hillary has significant leads in both categories, it's a fact and the numbers are readily available to everyone.

[DLCWIdem]

9. what I am saying is that she is winning even without the SD's

When MSNBC does the delegate count it is usually like this

This is just an example 1588 pd + 400 Sd = 1988

[DLCWIdem]

10. and she has been since Super Tuesday

[DLCWIdem]

11. the perception was she was only winning because of superdelegates.

[Squinch]

4. But the reason we instituted the super delegates was a good one. Each time an

extreme candidate won the primary, we were demolished in the general and it took us a long time to recover, and in the meantime, we were all plowed under by Republicans for years.

BS doesn't get to discredit our hedge against that disaster happening again.

[George II]

5. I know that and you know that, but I only said that to demonstrate that even without...

...the superdelegates, the bugaboo of the Sanders people, he's still getting his ass kicked and Clinton would have a majority of the delegates (pledged, since the SDs would be out) long before the convention.

They're banking on Sanders' charm and charisma flipping about 300 SDs between the last primary and the first vote in the convention.

It simply isn't going to happen. No matter how one slices and dices the delegate counts, he loses.

[SaschaHM]

6. "Sanders' charm and charisma"

If they're looking for charm and charisma from the increasingly crabby Senator from VT, they're going to be searching well into the 2020 General Election.

[sarae]

8. Right?!

LOL

[Squinch]

7. There's probably some plot to kidnap them all to a warehouse and beat them into submission.

With chairs.

Because liberty.