2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHelp me understand why choosing the nominee who lost the delegate and popular vote is "democracy"
What's the point of sending yuuuge crowd to Philly?
What are they rallying for? Not for victory for sure.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)Really?
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)for the will of the voters? Sounds fake.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)I consider this immoral, and this meme is popular with some of the worst dictators in the world.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)To we want to be a left party or a center right party? That's a schism. The center right is certainly winning. I agree with a lot of you that it may be better for the left to go ahead and move to greener pastures, while you guys and the republicans play political footsie.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)The super delegates were created for this purpose.
LuvLoogie
(7,066 posts)Hillary has more votes and more pledged delegates
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Had on the voting public. It certainly painted a picture of inevitability.
LiberalFighter
(51,263 posts)Most of the public don't consider whether someone supports a candidate.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)well as the cooperation of MSM's hardly ever mentioning Bernie's name at all for nearly
a year. They were determined to keep the American public from knowing anything about
Bernie at all. That, plus the peculiarities of the Dem. Primary voting system, where there
are more states with closed than open voting systems. Too many citizens were not allowed
to vote.
But in the GE polls, Bernie almost always outpointed either Hillary or Donald by between
10 and 20%. The American people want Bernie for president -- not Hillary or Donald!!
The majority of Americans don't trust either of them. And that's the truth.
Why do you keep on posting only a part of the truth, instead of the whole truth, over and
over again? To convince yourself?
LiberalFighter
(51,263 posts)It is the campaign's job to get their candidate's name out in the public. Not the MSM.
The Party does not control how primaries are conducted. State laws control that.
The nomination process is not intended for outsiders to decide the nominee for the Democratic Party. Otherwise, why have a Democratic Party? If people persist in this then it will revert back to the old days where there were no primaries or caucuses. And you won't get a say in the matter. State parties don't have to participate in primaries if they don't want to. They could use their state conventions to decide that.
GE polls are misleading as they are not based on how the election is decided for President. Electoral votes determine the outcome. And it is based on the results of individual states.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Democratic Primary Presidential debates in favor of Hillary? There were only 6 debates,
and most of them were scheduled for weekends and before National Holidays, so that
as few people as possible would be watching them. Hillary was already a well-known
national figure since the early 1990s -- all the other candidates were not as well known.
Dragging Debbie kept on ignoring the complaints of the other Democratic candidates,
who wanted more debates, and having them on more favorable dates.
Have you really forgotten Dragging Debbie and her crooked antics? As chairperson
of the DNC, her duty was to remain impartial and show no favoritism to anyone. But
she wasn't built that way. There is now a growing movement to have her removed
from the DNC chairmanship.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Allocate the superdelegates proportionally and Clinton still wins.
There's no formula (outside of simply taking delegates away from Clinton) that gets Sanders a win.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)I know it won't happen, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent that from happening IIUC.
I hope we get rid of super delegates someday.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)They were created to make sure that the losing candidate with the least pledged delegates did not manage to obtain the nomination as McGovern did ....and of course he lost badly.
LiberalFighter
(51,263 posts)Each and every one of them were elected. Even the DNC members were elected.
-none
(1,884 posts)Before any one else was running.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm sure that you want silence. It's not going to happen though.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That means the candidate with the most votes is the nominee no matter what.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But I was merely addressing the point abotu hte crowd
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Obama won the most pledged delegates, though. And that's why superdelegates switched.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)He won, and she lost...so it did work that way in 08.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)A. The primaries are not over.
B. The convention is not a coronation.
C. American's are allowed to protest.
D. The Democratic party has pissed off a whole lot of progressive Democrats on a whole lot of issues.
E. DWS sucks!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)From fixing the debate schedule to all the bits of fraud....it has been a dirty bit of stuff.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)It was probably good for Sanders that the debates were not seen by more people.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)..which is why her favorable ratings are so very poor, and Bernie's are so very high.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)would destroy our country...Trump (one court pick at a time)...sounds really foolish...what are you protesting for? Do you have a sad because Bernie lost? Big deal.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)either support Hillary or pound sand but remember if you do not support Hillary then you support Trump, it's them or us -either or -a binary choice
The question is what will people choose
Meteor Man
(385 posts)That is what Hillary supporters keep saying, but you are wrong. There is a People's Summit coming up. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 20 states. Writing in Bernie is a choice. Not voting is a choice.
If Hillary loses to Trump it will be because Hillary, the DNC and DWS abandoned long standing Democratic principles to kow tow to Wall Street and Big Oil and Big Pharma and . . . well you get the point.
You can't abandon your voters and not expect them to abandon you! That's how it works.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it has been made clear that there is no place in the tent for us unless we fall in line
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)And it strikes me that the DNC would truly be abandoning its voters if it handed the nomination to the 2nd place finisher.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The super delegates are in place to prevent such a thing as Hillary has wrought.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The superdelegates are not there to hand the nomination to the loser because he feels he's entitled to it or because he's waving around polls saying he could do better in the general election.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)..
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.
Sen. Hillary Clinton lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the popular vote and in pledged delegates.
It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.
Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.
"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.
Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)Bernie has spent a year bashing them...not much chance for him. He is not well liked by those who deal with him.
They are not a vote for Trump. The only option that is a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
There is nothing "de facto" about howva person votes.
The DNC does not "hand the nomination" to any candidate. Follow closely now. At the Democratic Convention there will be people known as delegates. The delegates will cast their votes. The votes will be counted. The results of the votes made by delegates will be announced.
Whoever wins the most votes will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.
See how that works? Now you know.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)It is a vote for Trump.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)The same logic can be applied for saying that is a vote for Hillary too. In fact, it's identical however a net zero is a net zero. If someone doesn't vote for Trump or Hillary, it doesn't enable either candidate to be elected.
brush
(53,963 posts)Clinton supporters always say they will vote blue no matter who the "who" meaning Sanders of course. We will vote for him if he wins.
But his supporters can't reciprocate. Why is that?
Why the absolute lunacy to do anything that might let lead to Trump and the repugs winning?
I will never understand.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)They are portraying themselves as Dems who will vote elsewhere. Closed vs.open Primaries generally prove that point. Look at the polls in CA when they produce number of likely voters, vs. registered Dem voters....huge difference in the lead, Hillary takes.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)If HRC has more Pledged Delegates on June 15, then it will be wrong for Sanders to ask Super Delegates to vote for him.
If HRC has a majority of total delegates counting Super Delegates while polls are still open in CA on June 7, then it will be wrong for MSNBC to call the primaries over without waiting for the polls to close.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)..
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.
Sen. Hillary Clinton lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the popular vote and in pledged delegates.
It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.
Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.
"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.
Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If Bernie won the most pledged delegates, you would be similarly understanding if the supers decided to give it to Hillary if they felt that she was more electable?
joshcryer
(62,286 posts)Because technically the convention counts pledged and superdelegates on the first ballot. When the first ballot comes up each state will send their delegate numbers, and each state has super delegates and pledged delegates. Even if all superdelegates went with their states, Clinton still wins the majority of the delegates.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...that candidate has the majority of pledged delegates.
The SDs have always sided with the candidate with the majority of PDs.
joshcryer
(62,286 posts)...like they called it for Obama?
It's really immaterial because Clinton will get the majority of pledged delegates (2026 without the superdelegates) once CA's polls close.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...to call the nomination for Clinton 3 hours before CA polls close.
That will suppress the vote.
joshcryer
(62,286 posts)People hearing that Clinton won and then people go to vote for Clinton to be able to say they voted for the first woman nominee.
But you can't underestimate that it could also bring out more Sanders supporters to temper her win in CA or maybe even make her lose CA.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...no matter how late or early that occurs.
HRC won't have that at least until CA results are counted.
Chris Matthews expects MSNBC to call the election at 5PM California time by including the Super Delegates and New Jersey.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)and as for the delegates, news flash...people are still voting! Delegates still to be awarded.
What's the rush? Let the process play itself out...peace
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It will not happen no matter how many people show up to protest the person with the most votes winning. I do not think they will be welcome if they are disruptive.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)outrage to assuage the hurt feeling and feel not so much the failure.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)is promising it's shrinking donor base.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The rest of us are just too stupid to be trusted with such decisions.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)how awarding the nomination to the losing candidate is democracy? Bernie wants to be selected because he can't be elected.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)and Obama won. Bernie is not a good candidate and would lose the GE.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Thank you
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)support democracy domestic and internationally as SOS and Senator when the interests of wealth are in conflict.
When the presumptive candidate has an easy to see if one looks record of saying one thing regards policy and doing something else to favor power and wealth over people.
The people rally to make themselves heard on the record when they have no representation.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)and the substitution your will for that of the voters is a form of totalitarianism.
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)but the Sanders phenomena is very much about how many folks, including good long term Democratic party members such as myself, have no representation in this POTUS election.
There was the recent Princeton study that concluded the USA no longer has a functioning democracy.
We readily support allies of nations that are right wing and totalitarian in nature.
Left wing nations, particularly in Latin America, are subject to covert ops and regime change for more right wing leadership and less democracy.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Every argument you made is an argument for why you think more people should have voted for Bernie.
The people voted. And he lost.
If you want to overturn that outcome, then it is you who are advocating for ensuring the people have no representation.
You want your vote to count more than mine.
PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)We were not given a broad choice in the primary.
Hillary Clinton was treated by the DNC as an incumbent and presumptive nominee before any one else declared as a candidate.
Many of us had no choice of anyone they wanted to support as a candidate.
Sanders was a surprise as a candidate and did amazingly well; Sanders was refreshing in that he suggested a move away from neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.
The Sanders phenomena this year is because so many people do not have representation.
Your vote does count more than mine.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)The logic is clear propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state and thats wise and good because again the common interests elude the bewildered herd, they cant figure them out. The public relations industry not only took this ideology on very explicitly but also acted on it, thats a huge industry, spending hundreds of..by now probably on the order of a billion dollars a year on it or something and its committment all along was to controlling the public mind.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)That's what I'm taking from it. Never mind that one candidate will have a majority of both pledged delegates and popular votes, as recorded. Never mind the words of those politically-savvy super delegates when they say they will vote for one of the candidates.
Never mind any of that. There are people who just know that they "know better" than other people and are willing to obstruct and disrupt the process so they can demand that their opinion rule.
I'm hopeful that, after the primary elections are over and the delegates allocated and after most of the super delegates tell us their intentions, this insistence that some "know better" than the voters will end and the process will be allowed to continue without disruption. That's what I hope.
Bernie Sanders should lead the way on this, if it's clear that he will not be the nominee. He should speak out clearly and plainly that his supporters should not try to force their will over the will of the voters.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)The nomination should not be decided by superdelegates, even if it is for my candidate.
The superdelegate system is not democratic.
Let's get rid of those fucking assholes.
That being said, I expect an apology from you and your Hillbuddies for lording the superdelegates over us for the past year.
But I doubt you will apologize because you and your buddies don't roll that way.
You like the superdelegates when they serve your purpose to create and air of inevitability for Hillary but magically now don't like them given that the could turn on Hillary.
Fancy that....
Not surprised.
Hypocrite.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Have superdelegates ever been responsible for nominating someone who didn't finish with the most pledged delegates?
davidlynch
(644 posts)It never has been. It isn't designed to be fair, it is designed to allow party insiders to choose who they want to run in the general election. Because of this there is huge institutional bias and pressure. Of course the system doesn't want Bernie, he's their worst nightmare!