DWS asked to explain how HRC lost NH primary by 22% but won an equal number of delegates

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

a reply to: HighFive

I think I was not being clear enough, even if Sanders got the popular vote I still see the superdelagtes voting for Clinton.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

Instead they impose the will of the electorate by brokered convention. The RNC just rigs it's nomination differently than the DNC does.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I believe you're incorrect. In the Republican convention, whoever shows up with sufficient delegates to get the nomination, wins the nomination. There are no Super Delegates in the GOP.

The last brokered convention for the GOP was 1948. For the Democrats it was 1952. In both cases, the candidate coming out of the brokered convention lost the general election.

what's the big deal? This is all by the rules. Bernie was fully aware of these rules coming in. If he makes a fuzz its an appeal to the low info voter.

Now if we get into local and state conventions and the DNC breaks their own rules, railroads their delegate slates in then we have an argument. I do see this happening.

ATM I think the superdelegates are being added to the numbers to give clinton that perceived lead. Kind of like how romney was given iowa in 2012 until he wasnt.

The DNC is fully aware of the blowback that could occur if they used the superdelegates to override what should be.
No they are not going to change the system; The DNC is a plantation, white ivory tower academics and then their serfs.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

Instead they impose the will of the electorate by brokered convention. The RNC just rigs it's nomination differently than the DNC does.

When is the last time the GOP had a brokered convention?

And as long as we are on the subject, why don't you get to choose who the candidate for the Green Party will be? How about the Socialist Workers Party? Or the Communist Party? Those parties choose their candidates and they appear on the General election ballot. You do not get a say in choosing those candidates. Is that circumventing democracy?

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

Does this mean that the GOP super delegates didn't need to go to an electoral college?




Just joking

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HighFive

At this point.. I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate.

Really? The Clinton's are established slimy scumbags not above coercion and other more despicable tactics. Sanders, not so much.

Sanders and Trump are both at a disadvantage inside the DNC and RNC. Like I said, I don't see a scenario where superdelegates don't follow the will of its electorate. It would crush the eventual nominee.

One more time: The GOP does not have "super delegates."

Never said they did. I was just acknowledging Sanders is not the favored candidate of the DNC, nor Trump of the RNC. I don't think either party will supplant the winner of the primaries with an establishment candidate. I could be wrong. Hope I'm not.

In the case of the GOP, the scenario would be: Trump wins the rest of the primaries, but not with enough delegates to secure the nomination with 4 candidates in the race. Brokered convention, Paul Ryan nominee, for instance.

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: AlaskanDad

“Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists”

Holy crap.

It's like these parties don't even try to look ethical anymore.

What I always find amazing is how both parties get lumped in with things like this that are PRIMARILY a Democratic Party issue.

Don't get me wrong, the Republican Party are no saints, but only the Democratic Party would even think of a system where the Votes by the people don't matter.

Stop lumping everyone in just because you refuse to realize the Democratic Party is NOT the party of the people they claim to be.

"Sure we are bad, but the other guys are bad too!

"

The electoral college exists so your argument is void. Both parties are in on the scam & the most actual voters are too wrapped up in their own partisanships to notice.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think a lot of Bernie fans are going to be upset when they give it to her. However keep the fight up, it was really discouraging having gone through it myself with the Ron Paul campaigns so I feel for them.

Its going to be interesting to see how far the DNC,MSM will push it to make sure she gets it.

The reason I feel that she will get it ,assuming she doesn't get charged with any criminal offences which is likely she wont:

1. She is too well connected and egotistic to run again, without having been promised a WIN . I think this was negotiated during the last election cycle with Obama.

2. The healthcare lobbyist are making too much money to want Obamacare repealed:
These are the 3 largest Healthcare insurance earning after Obamacare


3. If a republican gets elected and they don't repeal Obamacare it would REALLY piss off the republicans who still believe in the GOP.

Since the lobbyist are making to much money of Obamacare neither the GOP or the DNC wants to repeal it , hence the last election the GOP chose ROMNEYCARE to fight their biggest grievance OBAMACARE. Yep the GOP hated obamacare 2.0 so much ,they chose the one guy who implemented Obamacare 1.0 to represent them.

The lobbyist need another Democrat in office to make sure Obamacare doesn't get repealed. Its not that the republicans would appeal it , but its easier for the public to swallow if a democrat takes office.

4. Bernie from what I'm seeing is about implementing Healthcare the right way and removing the middleman (lobbyist) from the process. This is why I think the lobbyist don't want Bernie. Obamacare is their latest Golden egg and they don't any attention or modifications to what they have.

A little conspiracy theory here.

HRC was known to carry on her vicious campaign against Obama, past where she knew she had lost, it is often thought this was how she got SoS position. It is said that Obama held a grudge against Sid Bluemfeld for the dirty tricks he pulled while working HRC's campaign, so there must have been tension between Obama and HRC!

Now here is an source that states there is a split between DWS and Obama.

HRC went dirty in her campaign we know, but what exactly DWS did, to get Obama's scorn, I wonder.

The FBI has been turning out statements on HRC's emails, just before the last two primaries, is this coincidence or a little paybacks from O?

originally posted by: Esoterotica
The electoral college exists so your argument is void. Both parties are in on the scam & the most actual voters are too wrapped up in their own partisanships to notice.

If the electoral college is a 'scam', then its one that's been in place since the Constitution was written and predates the two major parties. It would take a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college.

It's there for a reason. I'm always surprised when people here (US citizens who are site members) don't know what the reason is.

But of course, when we point out that the Democrats have been stealing elections for years, we get laughed at. Of course, they don't do that.

Well, here you are, and they are stealing an election from you.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

It is said that Obama held a grudge

I have said that in the past you can feel that tension when he speaks about her, his lack of support for her and how far these investigations have gone. I have also said That I wouldn't be surprised if Obama himself isn't the reason behind these investigations.

HRC went dirty in her campaign we know, but what exactly DWS did, to get Obama's scorn, I wonder.

My gut feeling is since Hillary and Bill have been around politics for so long and have gotten away with so many things, that they Feel like they are royalty and their $h1t don't stink.

So I think that she didn't give Obama the time of the day when he first popped up and probably treated him like he was not worthy to be around her.

I also think Obama has a long term memory for things like that and is not one that is easy with letting go of a grudge.

Total speculation on my part.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: AlaskanDad

What ever happened to the idea who ever gets the majority of votes win? Are we still living in America?

Well, to be fair, the Electoral College was part of the original design in the Constitution:

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Then the twelfth amendment elaborated:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So, basically, the electors (which is not the general public, AKA "the popular vote") place their votes and send it up to the Senate, where the votes are counted. It is up to the laws of the individual states as to IF the electors are bound by law to vote for the majority winner of the popular vote. Not all states make that mandatory, so in theory, the elections are voted on by a small number of people who often are not even bound by law to reflect the will of the people in that state (according to the popular vote).

And even beyond that, if one of the candidates does not receive a majority of the number of electoral-college votes, then the Senate gets to hold a vote a choose the winner. Talk about rigging the system for a two-party debacle, is it any wonder why we suffer through two-party election cycles?

So to sum up, the popular vote has limited influence on who gets elected, it's the electoral college votes that matter, and even then, if one candidate doesn't get a majority of votes of the electoral college, the Senate votes on who is the new president.

And the individual American really still thinks that their vote has any meaning? I guess if you live in a state whose electors are bound by law to vote the way of the majority of the state's voters, but if you don't, your vote only kind of matters.

Maybe.

Of course, all of that happens after the primary process, so when you bring the idea of super-delegates into the picture, can we all understand why our voting process is not exactly the fairest in all the land?

I like Australia's voting system, personally. I learned about it in my statistics class years ago.

originally posted by: ketsuko
But of course, when we point out that the Democrats have been stealing elections for years, we get laughed at. Of course, they don't do that.

Well, here you are, and they are stealing an election from you.

Yep ,
Unfortunately the problem with that is, the majority of the population who supports the DNC and GOP are blind political followers. It was so blatant when the GOP threw Ron Paul under the bus , yet they still think the GOP isn't rigged either.

Its the individual political cheerleaders that is allowing rampant corruption within the DNC and the GOP. They are not concentrating on their own parties problem and focusing on the other parties problem which they have no control over.

Its fascinating and SAD how DNC and GOP supporters get misdirected from the real issues.

I have been following the primaries between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, and it certainly seems like Clinton has been corrupt in both of them. That's why I don't like her, because she is corrupt and acts like it doesn't matter = and she thinks she is entitled to the White House. I hope she loses in the primaries.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ah, but the Chief Executive is not solely a representative of the people. He is a representative of the country, including the Congressional Branch and Judicial (Federal Government), and all the separate states and THEIR respective governments, too.

The EC was designed to implement a process of selection that reflected all of that, not JUST the will of the people. We have our pure Representatives. They sit in the House. We are not even supposed to have the Senators, who were originally supposed to be representatives of the state governments, not the people of the states.

The entire process was supposed to be a check and balance in the system to keep the government restrained.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So to sum up, the popular vote has limited influence on who gets elected, it's the electoral college votes that matter, and even then, if one candidate doesn't get a majority of votes of the electoral college, the Senate votes on who is the new president.

And the individual American really still thinks that their vote has any meaning? I guess if you live in a state whose electors are bound by law to vote the way of the majority of the state's voters, but if you don't, your vote only kind of matters.

It still has meaning,, and because of the Electoral College it has MORE meaning than it otherwise would. We had a discussion about that a few weeks ago.

And for the record, the number of times an Electoral College member has voted against the "will of the people" in his or her state amounts to a handful, and half of those were because the candidate had died between the time of the popular election and the later Electoral College election. Further, none of these Electoral College "protest votes" has changed the course of the elections. It's never really been a factor.

The Electoral College has been "against" the majority vote two or three times in the history of the Republic, most notably with Bush II when Florida was the swing state. But, as you say, PEOPLE aren't the only factor here. States are, too. and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the importance states alone once had.