2016 Postmortem

baldguy

(36,649 posts)

42. But sexism has nothing to do with it.

Reply to Renew Deal (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:24 AM

Jun 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Super delegates should not be counted at all. [View all] kentuck Jun 2016 OP

I agree. bigwillq Jun 2016 #1

Popular vote can be misleading... kentuck Jun 2016 #5

I think caucuses should be eliminated (nt) bigwillq Jun 2016 #7

The thing is, the same candidate wouldn't necessarily win if caucuses were switched to primaries. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #21

Nebraska and Washington annavictorious Jun 2016 #51

Fine Stuckinthebush Jun 2016 #2

They don't understand math... TeacherB87 Jun 2016 #26

Just curious if you felt the same way in 2008? justiceischeap Jun 2016 #3

hillary will have the majority beachbum bob Jun 2016 #4

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #15

You can't change the rules midstream gollygee Jun 2016 #6

Agreed. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #11

Halfway agree. Limit it to the party chair and vice-chair in each state/territory Recursion Jun 2016 #8

HRC may have more pledged delegates because of the existence of superdelegates. stillwaiting Jun 2016 #9

Precisely. The pre-committed SDs were used to generate momentum. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #12

Yes. And it narrowed down our field way too much Recursion Jun 2016 #14

I would have thought that would have had the opposite effect. PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #19

The media through 450 delegates to Hillary? upaloopa Jun 2016 #28

The media Does Not run the Primary? HRC folks would obviously libdem4life Jun 2016 #34

Sanders was on so much I wore my mute button out! upaloopa Jun 2016 #39

Please save your mind. We're talking about the first 6 months or so, libdem4life Jun 2016 #40

HRC's purchase of the SD'S before the race shut out almost all competition Skink Jun 2016 #10

This O'Malley fan strongly agrees Recursion Jun 2016 #13

There's an uncomfortable gray zone between endorsing geek tragedy Jun 2016 #16

I'd like that to be frowned upon Recursion Jun 2016 #17

At the same time, endorsements are part of the game geek tragedy Jun 2016 #18

Agreed, and the ability to get them is an important signal Recursion Jun 2016 #20

That's BS. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #22

She starts with +400 and Biden doesn't run Skink Jun 2016 #33

That's also BS. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #44

Numerous other people would have gotten in if she didn't start at +400 Skink Jun 2016 #53

I guess she used her speach money to buy them upaloopa Jun 2016 #30

Didn't have to. DWS did the heavy lifting. It's Winning that brings libdem4life Jun 2016 #36

The National Party convention should be primarily used to agree on a Democratic Party platform Agony Jun 2016 #23

Sure, don't count superdelegates. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #24

If the SDs support the majority candidate, they're unnecessary demwing Jun 2016 #25

The SDs are supporting the majority candidate now. baldguy Jun 2016 #35

The current system. Has Nada to do with current reality. Committed libdem4life Jun 2016 #38

The current system *IS* the current reality. Sanders knew the rules going in. baldguy Jun 2016 #41

Really? And you can skip the talking point memes. They are old and moldy libdem4life Jun 2016 #43

Your refusal to accept the truth of basic facts, and your poor choices are not my problem. baldguy Jun 2016 #45

Typical response...devoid of facts but strong on additional memes, libdem4life Jun 2016 #46

Your statments certainly don't match your screen name. baldguy Jun 2016 #48

It's like having pretend elections. Octafish Jun 2016 #27

A minority of voters selected Hillary and the supers will too upaloopa Jun 2016 #32

A woman wins so it's time to change the rules Renew Deal Jun 2016 #29

But sexism has nothing to do with it. baldguy Jun 2016 #42

Yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with her policy positions or war-mongering record, right? truebrit71 Jun 2016 #49

Not at this point Renew Deal Jun 2016 #50

So what you're saying is that Sanders is still losing. Okay, then. randome Jun 2016 #31

For 2020 and later, absolutely agree. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #37

Fine Mz Pip Jun 2016 #47

I agree, and Sanders will still loose. They are not going to coronate a candidate that lost. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #52