HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » How fucked up is this?

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:11 PM

 

How fucked up is this?

Every single county in Washington State went for Sanders. And every single super delegate in Washington State endorsed Clinton. Now that's really supporting your citizenry, right? No, fucking WRONG. I will have to reevaluate my down ballot picks.

97 replies, 5397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 97 replies Author Time Post
Reply How fucked up is this? (Original post)
floriduck May 2016 OP
bkkyosemite May 2016 #1
FlatBaroque May 2016 #12
amborin May 2016 #50
hrmjustin May 2016 #2
floriduck May 2016 #3
hrmjustin May 2016 #6
JaneyVee May 2016 #8
floriduck May 2016 #10
hrmjustin May 2016 #14
floriduck May 2016 #19
hrmjustin May 2016 #21
Trenzalore May 2016 #45
floriduck May 2016 #77
WhiteTara May 2016 #37
floriduck May 2016 #79
ViseGrip May 2016 #40
puffy socks May 2016 #53
floriduck May 2016 #80
George II May 2016 #60
JTFrog May 2016 #61
bigwillq May 2016 #20
Silver_Witch May 2016 #82
JaneyVee May 2016 #4
floriduck May 2016 #5
JaneyVee May 2016 #7
floriduck May 2016 #11
mooseprime May 2016 #9
NWCorona May 2016 #13
liberal_at_heart May 2016 #26
me b zola May 2016 #78
NWCorona May 2016 #84
FlatBaroque May 2016 #15
MisterP May 2016 #18
lostnfound May 2016 #16
senz May 2016 #57
Baobab May 2016 #17
rbnyc May 2016 #22
Dragonfli May 2016 #25
rbnyc May 2016 #43
Dragonfli May 2016 #62
felix_numinous May 2016 #23
floriduck May 2016 #24
Vinca May 2016 #27
hellofromreddit May 2016 #30
JoePhilly May 2016 #32
HooptieWagon May 2016 #83
caquillo May 2016 #85
HooptieWagon May 2016 #87
caquillo May 2016 #90
JoePhilly May 2016 #28
bvf May 2016 #58
JoePhilly May 2016 #70
Buzz cook May 2016 #29
nolawarlock May 2016 #33
JoePhilly May 2016 #34
highprincipleswork May 2016 #39
Tarc May 2016 #46
nolawarlock May 2016 #31
JoePhilly May 2016 #36
nolawarlock May 2016 #38
floriduck May 2016 #47
WhiteTara May 2016 #35
floriduck May 2016 #48
WhiteTara May 2016 #55
floriduck May 2016 #75
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #41
Uncle Joe May 2016 #42
larkrake May 2016 #44
litlbilly May 2016 #49
Demsrule86 May 2016 #64
obamanut2012 May 2016 #88
lancer78 May 2016 #51
CentralMass May 2016 #66
LisaM May 2016 #52
floriduck May 2016 #91
LisaM May 2016 #94
floriduck May 2016 #96
MFM008 May 2016 #54
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #56
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #73
PowerToThePeople May 2016 #59
Demsrule86 May 2016 #63
Vote2016 May 2016 #65
emsimon33 May 2016 #67
pacalo May 2016 #68
Orsino May 2016 #69
Ferd Berfel May 2016 #71
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #72
CrispyQ May 2016 #74
FreakinDJ May 2016 #76
Silver_Witch May 2016 #81
obamanut2012 May 2016 #86
Rebkeh May 2016 #89
Blue Owl May 2016 #92
pdsimdars May 2016 #93
nolabels May 2016 #97
KoKo May 2016 #95

Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:12 PM

1. That's why thousands are showing up at the convention and that is why Bernie

Sanders is contesting. Corrupt as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #1)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:24 PM

12. March of the Berniecrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #12)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:07 PM

50. yes, by the millions!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:16 PM

2. Do you feel the same way about Alan Grayson?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:17 PM

3. How does that relate to Washington State?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #3)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:18 PM

6. His state went overwhelming for Hillary and won almost every county.

 

But Grayson is going to vote for Sanders at the convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:21 PM

8. Same with Ohio.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:23 PM

10. Grayson has had some serious issues with DWS. He's considered a rebel in his own party.

 

Alan is one person. The entire WA super delegation is voting against Sanders. And they weren't part of the Clinton Victory Fund scheme. They're just asshole establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #10)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:25 PM

14. Actually he put up an internet poll on his website to ask people who he should vote for.

 

It was not a protest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #14)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:31 PM

19. But the party, including PBO, is endorsing his opponent for the Senate bid.

 

So call it what you like but he's not well liked by the establishment because he tells it like he sees it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #19)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:33 PM

21. Ok but he is doing the same thing the Washington super delegates are doing.

 

Voting against the winner of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #21)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:06 PM

45. There have always been two sets of rules for Bernie supporters

Things that are ok for them are not ok for Hillary supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #21)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:09 AM

77. Again, he is one person, not 17.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #19)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:00 PM

37. He's facing ethics charges

for his business dealings. He's a multi millionaire and has a hedge fund based off shore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #37)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:10 AM

79. Irrelevant to this topic. Start your own thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #19)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:08 PM

40. and his opponent is a former republican as the rest in fla, except for Grayson.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #10)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:17 PM

53. Automatically excused because ...revolution! Give me a break. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #53)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:10 AM

80. Agreed. Take a long break.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #10)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:51 PM

60. But he's voting contrary to the way the Sanders people want. I guess there are "excuses" for some..

...to not vote the way their state voted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #10)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:52 PM

61. And here is the hypocrisy for all to see. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:32 PM

20. I do.

 

Grayson is a fool, and so are all the SDs who vote against the voice of the citizens, whether it's against Bernie or against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #20)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:24 AM

82. Thank you. I agree

 

Wrong is wrong!!! Vote for your choice and super delegates should vote the will of the people of their state district or county...I love Bernie by the way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:17 PM

4. Now you know how Hillz felt in 08.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:18 PM

5. Welcome to 2016. I can't change history.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #5)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:20 PM

7. Im ready for 2016.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #7)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:24 PM

11. Good luck with that, Janey.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:21 PM

9. what a mess this all is for everyone

i went to wa state caucuses, and one of them was organized so poorly, if there had actually been an organized conspiracy to thwart it, there would have been no way to tell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:25 PM

13. I really believe as a Washingtonian, the elected superdelegates that vote for Hillary will regret it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #13)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:48 PM

26. As a fellow Washingtonian, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #13)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:10 AM

78. Do they all hold elected office or are some of them lobbyists?

I agree that those elected people who vote to overturn the will of the people of Washington state will face backlash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #78)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:33 AM

84. I'm not sure but I know that some are elected Democrats

The don't care about the lobbyists on this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:25 PM

15. #Clintonism

Fuck you, I'm winning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #15)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:31 PM

18. followed immediately by "Fuck you, I used to win"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:28 PM

16. That's the advantage of being a bully.

Bernie isn't a bully. If he got elected, he'd continue to do what he has always done, which is make decisions based on what's right, and just, and good for the people that he represents.

If the party leaders in a particular state don't support him, he's not going to keep a little list for the sake of future revenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #16)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:39 PM

57. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:30 PM

17. Hillary has a lot to hide- Like GATS -Also, the Military Industrial Complex is powerful

And so is the healthcare lobby. they are the worst.

They aren't leaving anything up to the voters this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:34 PM

22. DWS says...

...superdelegates were put into place to work against grassroots campaigns. But I think they were actually put into place as a safety measure, to ensure we don't put forward an unelectable candidate. So if we have them, they should do their job and support Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbnyc (Reply #22)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:47 PM

25. You are right, the original intention was to step in in if an unelectable candidate won the vote or

if a tie needed to be broken.

DWS attempts to change the intent because the fear that prompted the change at the time was after a popular grass roots candidate that everyone knew was unelectable was nominated and there was no way to "step in" and support the more electable candidate. She uses the word "grass roots" to conflate the intention of the rule change which was to win General Elections rather than lose them, and not to deny a much more electable candidate.

Be they grass roots, or ones the General Electorate people simply find too untrustworthy, unfavorable, or corrupted to wish to vote for (sound like anyone we know?). They consider by design with this rule the entire electorate (which includes all voters rather than just the party faithful)

I was politically aware at the time and remember it's actual intent, the intent was to to quote one of the members on the committee, "We're about the business of winning again".

I know too many were not aware at the time, and so, do not, or to not wish to, see this newly tried corruption of the rule by using the party delegates by means of purchase or threat to steal ones way into an unfair advantage even if that one is far less electable (turning the rule change on it's head and reversing it's purpose), so I spent a day in the library looking up old newspaper articles to prove what those of us that were around when the rule change was adopted was meant to be used for. I also happened later to stumble upon an Amy Goodman interview/discussion on the matter and so will add both relevant bits of information below.

All Bernie needs to do is close the gap considerably to prove they are close and he is more electable (and she may well lose in a GE) for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories are designed, like them or not!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.


Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for their existence via reporting at the time:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

"Victory Is the Objective"

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democatic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections. ''There was a strong feeling,'' he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #25)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:54 PM

43. ^^^ This is a great post.

Thanks for all of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbnyc (Reply #43)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:53 PM

62. Thank you, it is good to know my memory and research is helpful, unfortunately knowing

The intended purpose of such "superdelegates" and them doing their intended job are two very different things.

As most that have not recently fallen off a turnip tuck already know, the Clintons have been keeping a very detailed and long list of people on an "enemies list" of sorts, but it is more than that, unlike Nixon, the list is used for both carrot and stick. They rate those on the list from 1 to 7. Those that make seven can expect to be destroyed politically, no matter how long it takes, or by whatever means it takes.

However, if one rates a 1, one can expect political favors, ranging from support on an issue or campaign during a critical time or, how can I put this without using words that bring bribery to mind? Financial support!

My certainty is that both the carrot and the stick are being used to turn the purpose of the superdelegates away from their intended reason for existence and using them instead to do the opposite and ensure the victory of the one carrying both the the largest carrots and sticks while disregarding entirely whomever might be electable or unelectable.

These thoughts depress me, as do thoughts of Plutocracy, Oligarchy, corruption, Neo-Nazism on the furthest right fringes and election fraud, all of which are known to exist in the modern United States.

At first I thought it was a mere reversion to the Tammany Hall days of political corruption for personal gain, but I am beginning to see a threat to the entire concept of Democracy itself these days, these ruminations are not meant to single out any particular politicians known or unknown to me, but something worse, a cancerous growth that has metasticised to the point where one may see the "mets" (as doctors call the varying branches of the spreading cancer) in many places one looks. Even in our Presidential politics of this cycle, sigh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:35 PM

23. Yes

it is. Prepaid delegates, many who have been identified as corporate lobbyists marked them all as corrupt.

vn.us/.../watch-do-lobbyist-superdelegates-have-a-bigger-vote-than-you-do/

So again, there are 717 superdelegates in total. Like democratic governors, members of Congress, and well-connected democratic state legislators, 463 of those superdelegates are not former or current elected officials. Many of them are party insiders who have spent years working for the party and making large donations.

But it turns out that an analysis by ABC News has found that 67 of those superdelegates—nearly 10 percent—are actually former or current lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #23)

Fri May 6, 2016, 04:38 PM

24. Greedy bastards! They deserve to be put out of business.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:49 PM

27. And to think we accuse the GOP of disenfranchising voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #27)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:51 PM

30. Well, that is ALSO true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #27)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:53 PM

32. If the SDs did not exist, Bernie would have no chance to win now.

Hillary has the majority of PDs locked up.

Bernie needs the SDs to flip to him to have any chance.

I find this line of argument from the Bernie folks to be rather hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #32)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:30 AM

83. No, she doesn't have PD 'locked up'.

 

She leads in PDs, but there's still many to elect...475 in Cali alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #83)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:12 PM

85. Remember, Democrats don't have winner-takes-all contest

Pledged delegates are awarded proportionately, according to vote percentaqe -- so even if Sanders ekes out a win in CA, he won't get all those 475 delegates. In order to get the majority of pledged delegates, he would need to win by large margins, not by mere 2 to 7 points, 'cause then they more or less just split the delegates. So if he barely wins CA, it's a wash for him. Now, if he won CA by 45 points (as he did WA) then that would be a great coup for him. Probably not enough to overtake Hillary's pledged delegate count at this point, or even come close to it, but it would be a significant victory, something he's been lacking despite winning 19 contests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caquillo (Reply #85)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:21 PM

87. Sanders needs about 2/3 of remaining PDs.

 

That's a tall order, but by no means does Clinton have it 'locked up'. Sanders will do very well in most of the remaining states. California is semi-open, registration deadline isn't for 2 more weeks...Sanders can pick up 50-100 delegates that state alone. He already just netted an additional 49 delegates in Washington. Oregon likely a blowout, will Clinton even be viable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #87)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:18 PM

90. But don't you see, even when Sanders wins a state, Hillary get some delegates too

and also continues to add to her count/lead, which is why many people (experts included) are saying that it's impossible for Sanders to catch up to her at this point. For every gain he makes, she makes up ground, too. Look at his 45-point win in delegate-rich Washington. It netted him 74 delegates, but she still got 27. Also, that 7-state winning streak he had in late March/early April (ID, UT, AK, HI, WA, WI, WY) got him 204 pledged delegates in total. That allowed him to close the 300+ pledge deficit by 100 (down to 200+), but then she came back with a vengeance when she won delegate rich NY, PA, and MD, as well as CT and DE and garnered 346 delegates, totally erasing the gains he had made during his winning streak.

The upcoming big prizes are NJ and CA, with 126 and 475 delegates, respectively. Hillary is polling far ahead in MD; the fight is closer in CA, but she's still ahead. My prediction is that CA will be a close call and they'll just split the delegates, whoever wins, which would be good for Hillary (she'll maintain her comfy lead) but terrible for Sanders, because it would be his last-ditch effort to make his case. Hillary also looks to come away with more pledged delegates on June 7, so she could once again erase any small gains Sanders makes between now and then when he's expected to win a string of upcoming (albeit smaller) contests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:50 PM

28. SDs get to vote however they want.

If they had to vote a certain way ... you'd just use a calculator to determine their votes. Which is kid of silly.

btw ... if the SDs did not exist ... Hillary would still have the majority of the PDs, and that alone would ensure she would win the nomination.

Ironic that Sanders' only chance is to flip a group of people who he (and his supporters) think should not exist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:44 PM

58. Yes, SDs are so entitled, yet...

 

Ironic that Sanders' only chance is to flip a group of people who he (and his supporters) think should not exist!


I didn't think that pothole in the road today should have existed, either. That didn't stop me from seeing it and dealing with it appropriately.

If you're going to throw around words, at least use them correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvf (Reply #58)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:07 AM

70. Except the "pothole" has been there from the beginning of the primary.

The pothole did not just appear as if by magic recently.

Early on, the Berners were angry claiming that Hillary would use that "pothole" to overturn the will of the voters.

Now that they are losing, the same folks DEMAND that "pothole" overturn the will of the voters.

In any case, the SDs aren't going to flip to Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:51 PM

29. So I'm sure everyone has seen this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/12/what-would-happen-if-superdelegates-had-to-vote-for-the-candidate-who-won-their-state/

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Basically Sanders is still behind with the supers voting with their states.

It's possible that Sanders could beat Clinton by 0.01 percentage points in every remaining state and then have more delegates in a superdelegates-all-go-to-the-winner-of-the-state scenario -- but it would still be close. If, however, Sanders were to somehow win the remaining states on the calendar by a wide margins, he would overtake Clinton's superdelegate lead under a proportional system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #29)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:54 PM

33. Based on that graphic ...

... I expect to see the same vehement folks that have been targeting superdelegates in states that Bernie won to now target all 50 with the same wrath, threatening to vote them out and cut out their tongues, all in hopes of snagging those proportional delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #29)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:55 PM

34. If you build a formula for how SDs must vote ... you might as well not have SDs.

I mean ... all you are doing is setting up a weighting formula.

Win by "this much" and we'll give you "extra delegates".

btw ... if we removed the SDs, Hillary still wins the majority of PDs, and wins the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #29)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:02 PM

39. That's a very helpful article. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #29)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:33 PM

46. Yes, exactly that. I, posted something along these lines yesterday

i na discussion about Maine and their superdelegates

No one is gaining or losing anything under this equation. Also, not all superdelegates are elected state officials, many are DNC members, former chairs, and so on. Should Walter Mondale's superdelegate vote be forced to be committed to Sanders just because Mondale still resides in Minnesota?

Larry Cohen is an adviser to Sanders, the former Communication Workers of America union head, and a superdelegate, but tied to Washington DC for his "home". If Clinton wins DC as expected, might Cohen be compelled to vote for her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:52 PM

31. How do you feel about Raúl Grijalva not supporting his state?

It's a shame that folks don't understand how the superdelegates work. I think we should get rid of them, but so long as they're there, I can't see why they shouldn't do their jobs, which is the good of the party. And by party, I don't mean third party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #31)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:57 PM

36. Their "job" is to vote what THEY as individuals think is best.

They by definition has complete autonomy to decide what that means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #36)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:01 PM

38. Exactly.

If we don't like that expressly defined job, then we as a party should get rid of them. I personally don't like the idea of superdelegates but if they're going to be there, let them do what they're supposed to do. If they decide to swing for Bernie, fine. I just know that they won't, not even with the 10,000 Bernie fans ranting outside the convention that someone here threatened. The supers will just see them as more of the same ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolawarlock (Reply #31)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:29 PM

47. That's just one SD. The others are all Clinton stock holders.

 

WA is every fucking SD in a state where Bernie won every county and won with 75% or so in those caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 05:56 PM

35. How f*cked up of Raul Grijvala

to not switch his support from Bernie to Hillary because she won Arizona. How unfair is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #35)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:31 PM

48. See my earlier post #47. One is no comparison to an entire state of Super Ds.

 

Use your head for once!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #48)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:22 PM

55. Of course what ever Bernie does is pure

as driven snow and whatever anyone else does positions them for a place under the bus.

Use your manners for once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #55)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:04 AM

75. What an amazingly ignorant response.

 

Did every single county in AZ go to Clinton? Coconino county did not. So you have no good response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:12 PM

41. Similar situation in Minnesota. Overwhelmingly the state voted for Bernie

but all the superdelegates except for Keith Ellison and Colin Peterson (normally a conservative Blue Dog but he is actually going along with the voters in his district!) are voting for Hillary - even Al Franken, who I always thought was a real progressive (but apparently not). Minnesota was one of the states that got money from the Hillary PAC but then funneled it right back to the DNC in that dodgy deal that smells a whole lot like money laundering to avoid campaign finance limits. It all kind of stinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 06:13 PM

42. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, floriduck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:02 PM

44. As long as Lobbyists can be super-delegates, its criminal control over the public vote

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:35 PM

49. im gonna say it again, Oregon, then California are going to push Bernie past Hill in delegates.

 

Even if its only by 1, Bernie has to be the nominee. These are not normal times and we are gonna get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #49)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:01 PM

64. Not going to happen

He would have to win 67% of the remaining vote. He won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #49)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

88. hahahahahaha

Oh wait, you were serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:09 PM

51. According to CNN

 

If the supers in states that Sanders won supported him, he would have 104 more super delegates and HRC would have 104 less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #51)

Fri May 6, 2016, 11:10 PM

66. This is the type of bullshit that will have many not punching the top of the ticket.

Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:16 PM

52. I want to make a few points here.

1) the turnout was abysmal. 4%.

2) it was on Easter weekend - anyone with family plans was pretty much SOL.

3) almost every Hillary supporter I know wanted to stay home because we didn't want to face the kind of bullying that has subsequently occurred at the next level of conventions, like the one in Snohomish County. I had friends calling lists of Hillary supporters who said one after another that they just did not want to go and deal with it. I think that's intimidation and I don't think it's alright.

4) Hillary has been out to Washington many, many times to raise money for almost all of these candidates. I've never seen Bernie out here once except for his own rallies.


My main point is that caucuses are exclusionary and unfair, but in this case, you can't really make a case that the large percentages that Bernie came away with represent the actual percentage of people supporting him. I do think Bernie would have won Washington state, overwhelmingly white, lots of young tech workers, and a rural population in the east side of the state among other things. But given that someone recently tracked down Congressman McDermott (my congressman) in his office threatening to cut out his tongue for not switching his super delegate vote (McDermott brought a shovel to work and hid it behind some flags in case he had to protect himself), when it's not even legal to campaign in that office, is going to give the rest of the elected officials in Washington pause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #52)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:45 PM

91. Your list is partially accurate.

 

It was Easter weekend. But the date was chosen by the WA State Democratic Party. So it affected both candidates. I was a precinct captain in Clark County. We had no problem with intimidation issues and Clark County would be considered a rural are. We are heavily Republican here. Most of the urban areas are in Seattle.

Jim McDermott of today is not the same man my sister worked for in the late 70s. He and people like Patty Murray have gone corporate. In exchange for her yes on TPP, she got a $56000 donation from one of the supporters of the agreement. Cantwell has always been more of a hawk so her support of Hillary is understandable.

Lastly, it is unfair to hint or suggest that any lunatic threatening violence against any super delegate is somehow supported by Bernie Sanders or even the vast majority of his supporters. I know they exist but they don't belong in Bernie's camp if they are a threat to anyone. I do think the Clinton camp has done a good job of creating an overblown situation. I refuse to accept that all Clinton supporters are angels. Hell, some on this site might be off center too.

Lastly, had it been a primary, I agree that Bernie's margin might be the same or higher. Oregon will likely be the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #91)

Sat May 7, 2016, 05:06 PM

94. Higher?

He would have won but the percentage would have been lower. Also, the Saturday morning time frame and commitment highly favor younger voters with more flexible schedules. Lots of demographics are locked out of caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #94)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:21 PM

96. I never said I am in favor of caucuses. I am not. But I think a primary would have looked very much

 

the same percentage wise. Look at history; Washington is not simply a blue state. It also voted against Hillary in 2008. The Seattle area populous is more progressive than most other areas in the U.S. Hillary is old news here. Bernie would have still beaten her by similar margins in a primary. That is my opinion. You can have yours and we can agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:19 PM

54. Out of 7 million WA voters

I voted for HRC she lost the 28th by 2 votes. 5 of my family members didn't show up . That's more votes she lost. A ballot vote will be different.
This state hasn't had a gop governer since the 70s.
It's not going to happen despite disgruntled BS voters.
No one is going to bully and threaten for the old man yelling at clouds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:30 PM

56. Murray and Cantwell skipped the "representative", and "democratic", part of the class.

 

I'm also reevaluating my votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:47 PM

59. I will vote for zero super-delegates

 

going against the votes of their constituency.

In fact, I will actively work against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:00 PM

63. She has the most delegates that is how it works

You should expect the rest to follow when it becomes apparent he can't win the most delegate by any means..he would have to win 2/3 unlikely but they are giving him a shot ...probably right after California at the latest ; the supers will act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:41 PM

65. Agreed. This needs to stop.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 11:17 PM

67. I think that millions of will be doing so, now & in the future

Not just votes but GOTV efforts and $$$$ although the $$$$ I have been told can be gotten from former Bush donors so ours are meaningless.

I have heard many people talking about a third party since they feel the current two have kicked THE PEOPLE to the curb. I don't know what to think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:36 AM

68. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:59 AM

69. The Establishment talks.

Bullshit, it seems, walks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:27 AM

71. proving of course, that this turd is rigged.

and that they will continue to rig this any way they can.

Down Ballot?

I will not support any DLC, Blue Dog, Third Way Corporate whores going forward, regardless of how insane the opponent bogeyman.
Doing otherwise means that I would be supporting this continued race to the Reich.

and BTW, I sent Bernie another $25 last week. I will do it again before this is over.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:40 AM

72. The interesting thing is that they're sticking with Clinton despite the blowback.

 

My freshman congressman is now very likely facing a primary challenge, as is Patty Murray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:46 AM

74. In CO, Sanders won 60% of the vote, but currently 8 out of 12 of the SD's are voting Clinton.

I've definitely reevaluated my down ticket ballot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:06 AM

76. The DNC thought Super Delegates would fix things

 

They have only created a larger problem for the party




?w=468

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:18 AM

81. Pretty fucked up!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:13 PM

86. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:02 PM

89. Very. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 02:20 PM

92. FUBAR manifest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:29 PM

93. Sponsored by your Democratic party. . . . they took the "democracy" out of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #93)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:24 PM

97. ^^^^^ "DING, DING, DING" and by unanimous decision by way of KNOCKOUT, we have a WINNER ^^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:08 PM

95. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread