Yes! Please let everyone vote first!

[retrowire]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by etherealtruth (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

I agree with Le Taz Hot completely!

I haven't voted yet! This contest is only about 24% over!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280135308

as a show of hands, REC THIS IF YOU HAVENT VOTED YET.

I await my lock.

[bigwillq]

1. K and R!

Let Retro Vote! let Wire Vote!

[JaneyVee]

3. Is someone stopping you from voting?

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Someone is suggesting that votes after March 15th don't matter.

[Trust Buster]

5. While others suggest that they won't vote in November if they're unhappy in June.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. My first primary as a Democrat.

So much makes sense now, that didn't before. And I don't mean "makes sense" to mean that I agree with it. Just that I understand now why the Democratic party has been in crisis.

[ish of the hammer]

90. this dem party is not your great grandfather's dem party.

[retrowire]

12. no, but people getting locked for saying not to count them out

before the votes are cast is nonsense.

[NurseJackie]

6. Tell us more about not being allowed to vote. This is OUTRAGEOUS!!

[Qutzupalotl]

89. Mock the Vote.

[99th_Monkey]

7. I haven't voted yet, and would like to, before primaries are declared "over".

I'm in Oregon so I don't get to vote until May 17th, so hold your horses on
declaring winners and losers.

[Garrett78]

9. I don't think anyone is telling you that you can't or shouldn't vote.

Nobody is suggesting that the primary has officially concluded.

[sarge43]

14. Maybe not, but there was plenty of "it's all over", "Sanders should concede",

"Clinton has a lock on the nomination".

In short, give up; your vote doesn't mean a thing.

Democrats shouldn't be trying to suppress voting, regardless of the candidate of choice.

[Garrett78]

19. Clinton will most certainly be the nominee.

But pointing that out in no way means Sanders should concede or that people shouldn't vote. I haven't seen too many suggest such things and wouldn't agree with anyone who does, but I also wouldn't worry too much about that, as it has no bearing on what actually takes place. For the most part, what I see is people pointing out the mathematical and demographic realities that make it clear Clinton is an overwhelming favorite to become the nominee. And people such as myself pointing out that it doesn't do any good to engage in fallacious reasoning, which was my point in starting this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1401642.

But, by all means, vote as you see fit.

[liberal_at_heart]

26. Oh, you're damn right I'll vote as I see fit.

I vote on March 26 and Bernie is getting my vote.

[Garrett78]

39. Good for you.

Glad to hear it.

[Trajan]

27. Easy ...

Between pimping for Hillary the conservative and defending the confederacy, it's a safe bet that I won't miss your posts one bit ...

[MaggieD]

43. He should concede after Marc 15th

IMO. But no one is telling you not to vote. Go right ahead.

[DeadLetterOffice]

70. Why would he? HRC didn't in 2008 until June...

[Contrary1]

86. Yeah. Even Hillary doesn't believe he should concede that soon...

or has she "evolved" again?

May 24, 2008: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

[newthinking]

35. Seriously? The establishment wants to essentially "virtually" call it and disinfranchise

the remaining voters.

It is bullshit to act naive about this since everyone here understands how voter disenfranchisement works when we see Republicans do it. It is shameful to see similar things happening in our own party and members.

it is an (effective) Disenfranchisement method to prematurely call election tallies. That discourages participation. Something we should not engage in if we are a more principled party.

[Garrett78]

44. No disenfranchisement.

I don't think anyone will abstain from voting because some others point out mathematical and demographic realities.

[starroute]

68. The reality is that the primaries are front-loaded with Southern states

The system was specifically designed to favor more conservative candidates and knock out progressives early by drying up their voter enthusiasm and financial support. Your "mathematical and democratic realities" are kind of a Potemkin village.

[DeadLetterOffice]

72. // THIS!! // n/t

[eggplant]

80. ^^^^^^ THIS.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. Absolutely correct. The primaries are front-loaded in a way that favors conservative candidates.

If it works well enough, it creates a momentum for the conservative that can't be later overcome (particularly when the conservative corporate media trumpets that shit with all its might).

The system is rigged, boys and girls.

[Qutzupalotl]

96. Exactly.

My state votes in May. We're lopsided for Bernie (aren't we all?). We should at least rotate the starters if we can come together as a party, but the states ultimately decide when and how to vote. I'd love to see caucuses go away too, and go back to paper ballots or vote by mail like we have in Oregon. Oh, and replace DWS.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Count the votes! (Not the establishment voices)

[TBF]

11. I early voted in TX &

rec'ced this for everyone who hasn't had a chance to vote for Bernie yet. We are in this to win it!!!!

[sarge43]

13. I've already voted, but I'll rec anyway because I agree with Le Taz and retrowire

GOTV: Get out to vote

[jwirr]

15. I voted. But I want to remind everyone that the ONLY time

this is over is when the elected delegates reach the point where there are not enough delegates left to win it. And this does not include the super-delegates because they do not count until the Convention no matter what they say.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

34. I remember the Dem. convention of "68" n/t

[jwirr]

47. Me to. It can happen again if the is what they want.

[newthinking]

42. this!

[m-lekktor]

16. I don't vote until April 26 I think it is. nt

[LiberalArkie]

17. K&R

[MrMickeysMom]

18. K&R from the swing state of Pennsylvania!

In fact, I'm on my way to meet with folks down at the Strip District in Pittsburgh right now!

Lock this

[H2O Man]

20. Recommended.

Votes count. I think, anyhow.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Californians vote June 7

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Seems like it isn't about not wanting people to vote

its all about keeping quiet about it.

Just like March of 2008 (or the polar opposite of that)

[Rebkeh]

23. I haven't voted yet nt

[demwing]

24. I don't vote till the 15th - which, I've just learned, is...

the new end of the primary season.

Sorry Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming!



28 states and territories, accounting for 49.9% of all pledged delegates and 53.1% of super delegates, just don't count.

[TIME TO PANIC]

25. K & R!

I have not voted yet.

[lark]

28. This shouldn't get locked!

I haven't voted yet, though I think my backward redneck state will probably go Clinton and Trump. I live in FL with tons of minorities and teapublicans, so I don't have much faith in the voters here to do the right thing. I will be voting Bernie. Glad to say that I've convinced 3 of my black friends to vote for Bernie too. All of them originally were voting for Hillary, but after hearing about Bernie they now agree he's the best candidate for president we've had in our life times.

Go Bernie!!

[Duval]

29. K&R.

NC votes on the 15th, but early voting has begun. I have not voted yet, but plan to do so before the 15th. For Bernie, but it looks like Hillary will win in NC, along with Trump.

[metroins]

30. Nobody is saying you cannot vote.

It is just that realistically, Bernie will not win via delegates.

It's not slam, or hit, or disenfranchising thing; it is just the realistic numbers going forward after March 15th. Even if Bernie wins almost all of the states going forward, he will not win by large enough margins to cinch the win.

Bernie should not drop out, but the focus of the campaigns should shift.

[Autumn Colors]

41. Total BS

Superdelegates should not be counted until they actually vote at the convention. Superdelegate totals shouldn't be included in any totals until July in Philadelphia.

Any attempt to shut down discussion of the primaries while voting is still going on is censorship and will only reflect badly on the candidate who will be helped by such censorship. Censorship on KOS just serves to confirm that the owner of the site favors Hillary and is shutting down discussion to favor her.

Want to do the same here? It will be blatantly obvious then that the OWNER of DU is biased and imposing censorship to help his candidate.

March 15th is the big date here. Primaries and caucuses in states favorable to Hillary will be happening between now and March 15th. After that, the pendulum will swing drastically, and the majority of the primaries and caucuses will be in states that favor Bernie. The passing of time also has worked in Bernie's favor and that, too, has to be factored in. The more people get to know Bernie, the more they like him.

Hillary will reach her primary season peak on or about March 15th .... so KOS chooses THAT date to impose a policy of censorship of no more primary talk ... BECAUSE AFTER THAT DATE, IT WILL BECOME MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY SUCH A POLICY BECAUSE BERNIE WILL START GAINING ON HILLARY IN THE PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNTS.

Superdelegates can still change their votes at the convention if the opposing candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates.

Including them into the delegate counts at this point in time is ridiculous.

[metroins]

53. You wrote a lot

And I'm not prepared to write that much from my phone.

But Hillary is going to win in pledged delegates.

Bernie will be unable to make up the deficit unless he won LARGE delegate states by HUGE margins. Which just isn't going to happen.

It might be a "close" race but Bernie made a mistake by focusing on lower delegate states in the beginning.

It's just the reality of things.

[Autumn Colors]

55. If you're so confident about your candidates chances,

then there should be no problem with letting debate continue to the end of primaries.

As opposed to desperately trying to shut down debate.

[metroins]

57. If

The debate were on policy differences, I'd be all for it.

But there's a lot of personal attacks going on and there is no reason to do the Republicans work for them.

[Autumn Colors]

61. Yes, Hillary is the queen of personal attacks

I agree with that. (See: 2008 primaries)

You really don't see how frantic this looks, do you? OMG, we need to shut down the discussion now ... before Hillary starts losing big time.

[newthinking]

48. It's DISINFRANCHISEMENT pure and simple

we call it when Republicans do it and want a pass to do it on our side. Bullshit.

Dirty politics cannot continue, even in our own party. That is one of the reasons the party has been hemorrhaging and there is a fight going on. People want an end to Machiavellian methods before there is no semblance of honest democracy left. They are tired of this shit and want the turds with no morals and respect for the will of people out.

[metroins]

56. It's not.

Bernie made a strategic mistake by focusing on low delegate states.

The deficit of pledged delegates will be too much to overcome unless he starts winning by HUGE amounts in LARGE delegate states. Which is extremely unlikely at this stage and VERY unlikely after the 15th.

Just look at today, if Hillary sweeps LA, it's worth more than the other 3 states combined.

It is reality.

[Autumn Colors]

58. Shutting down debate so early totally reeks of desperation

... because internals are probably showing that Bernie will be seeing New Hampshire-like wins in many states after March 15th.

Really, the urgent desperation is showing.

[newthinking]

64. Not going there

I pretty much (mostly) haven't been participating in these arguments because they are run more by personal bias and the media narrative than actual mathematics.

My point is simply
1. mathematically it is premature to make these claims.
2. There is already too much game playing in politics and if people are really progressive they should lay off.

Mostly people are pissed off at the media and power brokers who would indeed LOVE to supress votes. People here do not really have that capability but since this is supposed to be a progressive board it pisses people off to see people supporting macievellian approaches that many despise.

[MaggieD]

62. Huh?

I think you need to look up the word disenfranchisement. Stating the obvious (that he is not going to win) is not preventing you from voting. This is what democracy looks like. Sorry.

[newthinking]

66. Trying to silence and manipulating media information and party officials

using their positions to suppress candidates is just that.

No people here are not able to, but some are certainly supporting it.

[Rebkeh]

65. That's not the point

This is supposed to be a democracy. Silencing voices and forcing hands before the official end of the primary process is patently undemocratic.

There's nothing else to say.

[George II]

31. You guys seem to act like someone around here said people should NOT vote. Where did that...

....come from?

[MaggieD]

38. I know - it's very weird

Who said people shouldn't vote?

[retrowire]

50. You're right! I never said that either!

My OP is to clarify that we should be allowed to vote before considering the whole thing finished. As was Le Taz Hot's OP. No need to play naive about it.

[MaggieD]

63. What does "considering the whole thing finished" mean?

You mean we can't state the obvious? That he is not going to win? Hell, I have been saying that since May.

This is what Democracy looks like. You get to vote. I get to say he isn't going to win. That's the life.

[newthinking]

71. LOL. That is not a high reasoning concept

If you let your mind clear it is actually something a child can understand. In a vote it is not "finished" until everyone has voted.

The fact that you have been led to believe otherwise just shows how disfunctional our democracy actually is. It should not be so difficult to understand why this is a problem.

Our society is so full of media based manipulative persuasion much of our population is not even able to understand straightforward concepts. Don't buy into it.

It is not you saying it, it is parroting something that people who have the actual capability to short circuit democratic policies are trying to effect.

You are going to get called on it. Get used to it.

[retrowire]

79. I can also tell you that drawing that conclusion when only 24% of the contest is over is...

disingenuous. lol

[John Poet]

98. And I get to say, "Hillary will probably wind up in prison" !

It ain't over til the fat F.B.I. gives Hillary a clean legal bill of health.

[retrowire]

51. When did I say that? When did Le Taz Hot say that?

I can wait lol.

My OP is to clarify that we should be allowed to vote before considering the whole thing finished. As was Le Taz Hot's OP. No need to play naive about it.

[George II]

69. Okay, let me change my question a bit - when did anyone say the whole thing is finished?

I've now seen four or five OPs now implying that people are saying that.

Not naive, just objectively reading posts here this morning (from both sides)

[retrowire]

78. IT's about Daily Kos trying to hush communication regarding the primaries as early as the 15th

Also, talk to MaggieD who thinks it's obvious that it's finished.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1418665

[George II]

81. Then perhaps you should post your concerns on Daily Kos instead of here?

[retrowire]

82. I'm not a member over there, and people are talking about it here. nt

[Autumn Colors]

32. My state votes in April (nt)

[xloadiex]

33. K&R

Haven't voted in Il yet. Even though there is early voting, the only option for early voting is on machines. I can get a paper ballot if I wait until March 15th. I don't trust Rahm or his machines.

[SoapBox]

36. K & R retrowire!

[MaggieD]

37. Vote before what?

[retrowire]

52. Before considering this whole thing finished.

Before shutting down conversations about it on other websites.

Nobody ever inferred that we're saying we're being denied our vote. That's spun logic used to disavow our point.

[MaggieD]

59. So we shouldn't state the obvious before you vote?

Is this a new rule instituted just for Sander's supporters? Never heard of such a thing in 38 years of voting. LOL!

[retrowire]

76. about 24% percent of the delegates have been distributed.

So it's obvious it's over? I never heard such a thing in my 28 years of life! LOL! XD

[Duppers]

40. I've voted but am recommending anyway.

How can DUers talk about Republican voter laws and do this?

[MaggieD]

45. Do what?

No one is suggesting people shouldn't vote. If so, link?

[LiberalElite]

46. I'm with Retrowire and LeTaz Hot nt

[yuiyoshida]

49. CALIFORNIA JUNE 7TH

[dana_b]

85. San Francisco!!

home...

[Ed Suspicious]

54. Kicked and Recommended

[Hazelrah]

60. PA votes in late April

Didn’t the conventional belief that the 2008 Clinton/Obama longer primary would hurt the party in the general turn out to be the complete opposite?

I thought that setting up offices and getting people volunteering in more states made it easier to leverage those resources in the general.

If that’s the case, why not let every state vote and build a nice solid foundation.

I live/work in Philly (which helps pull the state blue every election) and I’m not hearing a lot of discussion about the election except for those for/against Trump. Almost no one is talking about the democrats at all. Waking Philly up to what our take on the issues just seems like a good idea.

On a side note, I'd like to f'ing vote.

[HubertHeaver]

83. In 2004, Kerry had the nomination wrapped up in March.

The campaign and new coverage went dark until the convention. Of course, June and half of July was dedicated as a memorial to Ronnie. Trying to get positive media attention after the dark period and the "memorial" period was just about impossible. The Swift-Liars showed up and grabbed the momentum. The election, that should have been a landslide for Kerry, ended up close enough to steal.

Shutting down discussion runs the risk of all coverage of democratic issues going dark.

[HootieMcBoob]

67. Rec'd and kicked from NY State

We haven't voted yet. It ain't over till it's over!

[warrprayer]

73. Not voted yet!

Kick

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. and a kick

[liberalnarb]

75. Pennsylvania. We don't get a voice until April 26th

But it ain't over til its over. Bernie 2016 til the end.

[dchill]

77. I am a Bernie supporter from PA!

Markos can suck it!

[dana_b]

84. California, here

and I will not be told that my vote does not matter in the primaries. No way.

Bernie - all the way!!

[Enthusiast]

87. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[BainsBane]

88. At a certain point it becomes mathematically impossible for a trailing candidate to win

at that point the leading candidate becomes the presumptive nominee. If that happens, Democrats rally around their presumptive nominee.

[awake]

95. and that point is when a candidate has more than 50% of all pledged delegates and not before!

Supers do not count because they can change their mind before the convention while pledged delegates must vote for whom they are "pledged" to until the first vote has been cast at the convention.

[retrowire]

97. So when only 24% of the points have been given out in a contest...

You "mathematically" consider that a presumptive victory for a team?

....

[Liz_Estrada]

93. Hoosiers vote May 3rd

Still proud that Indiana's May 6, 2008 primary vote was nearly 50-50, and I felt that my vote for Obama mattered.

[etherealtruth]

99. LOCKING

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.