Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)

6. Your lol has a nervous edge to it.

Reply to Trenzalore (Reply #5)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:47 AM

May 2016

Sorry your candidate lost.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What some people don't understand about the super delegates. [View all] onenote May 2016 OP

I agree with this assesment. tazkcmo May 2016 #1

Good, concise analysis. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #2

The Super delegates last stand Skink May 2016 #3

Maybe. Maybe not. onenote May 2016 #10

Or maybe there would have been a competitive field Skink May 2016 #11

Without SDs, the winner would simply be the person with the most PDs. Garrett78 May 2016 #12

You're entitled to believe what you want to believe onenote May 2016 #19

Plus the fundraising and positions for relatives with the Clinton Foundation. IdaBriggs May 2016 #22

Please provide more information onenote May 2016 #24

Go to linked in and do your own research. Or use google. IdaBriggs May 2016 #25

Since you're the one claiming payments were made, the burden of proof is on you, not me onenote May 2016 #30

Really, I don't have to anymore. I have provided links IdaBriggs May 2016 #32

She has gone on the stump for many of them for years. LisaM May 2016 #27

Not even remotely. tonyt53 May 2016 #26

At some point, the DNC does have a financial interest in winning elections. lagomorph777 May 2016 #4

No one is in a panic lol nt Trenzalore May 2016 #5

Your lol has a nervous edge to it. lagomorph777 May 2016 #6

There is no nervous edge Trenzalore May 2016 #7

Wow, we're in the presence of a "lol" analyst. Garrett78 May 2016 #14

Hillarians post LOL or smilies instead of content. lagomorph777 May 2016 #21

Which is why they're supporting the candidate that has helped raise money for the party onenote May 2016 #31

Yup. I can't even begin to fathom the sort of mindset that one would have to have to think that Lucinda May 2016 #8

But... but... all the superdelegates secretly want to vote for Sanders. procon May 2016 #9

"You're a corrupt Third Way DINO corporate fascist, one step short of a NAZI..." baldguy May 2016 #13

Thank's for explaining who the DNC oligarchs are, but we been talking about them B Calm May 2016 #15

Do away with SDs and the nominee would be the one with the most PDs. Garrett78 May 2016 #16

Not so sure about that, but thanks to the DNC oligarchy we'll never know! B Calm May 2016 #17

But we do know that, because she does lead in PDs. Garrett78 May 2016 #18

See post 19 and thanks for confirming my explanation onenote May 2016 #20

That same scenario was in place in 2008. Beacool May 2016 #23

I know a number of super delegates and I agree with this analysis Gothmog May 2016 #28

Apparently there's a site called www.lobbydelegates.com, and... Garrett78 May 2016 #29

Some time ago I sat down to read the list of superdelegates for the Democratic party Samantha May 2016 #33

I'm all for doing away with superdelegates. And caucuses, which suppress the vote. Garrett78 May 2016 #34

We have the best government money can buy. B Calm May 2016 #35