HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » A Bernie Sanders Supporte...

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:36 AM

A Bernie Sanders Supporter Confronted a Superdelegate — Then Leaked Their Private Conversation

(Article by Tom Cahill | March 30, 2016)

One superdelegate casually admitted to a Bernie Sanders supporter that she’ll vote to nominate Hillary Clinton, despite 81.6 percent of her state voting for Sanders.

Levi Younger, from Eagle River, Alaska, is a recent political science graduate who caucused last Saturday with thousands of other Alaskans. Younger recently reached out to superdelegate Kim Metcalfe on Facebook, asking her to side with her state and support Sanders at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Metcalfe, who is listed on the Alaska Democratic Party website as the state’s national committeewoman since 2012, cavalierly told Younger she would be supporting Hillary Clinton, due to her “negative” conversations with Sanders supporters.

“I pointed out how our state’s caucus had turned out and hoped she’d vote for our resounding majority,” Younger told US Uncut in an email. “Things unraveled pretty quick from there.”

As seen by screenshots of Younger’s conversation with Metcalfe, Younger approached the conversation with a diplomatic, respectful tone. However, Metcalfe refused to budge in her support of the former Secretary of State despite the popular opinion of the people, only saying she would support Sanders if he was the nominee.

**SNIP**

For more, go here.

238 replies, 16618 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 238 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Bernie Sanders Supporter Confronted a Superdelegate — Then Leaked Their Private Conversation (Original post)
chervilant Mar 2016 OP
djean111 Mar 2016 #1
chervilant Mar 2016 #2
7wo7rees Mar 2016 #6
chervilant Mar 2016 #9
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #174
yellerpup Mar 2016 #16
chervilant Mar 2016 #19
yellerpup Mar 2016 #23
SoapBox Mar 2016 #62
chervilant Mar 2016 #96
mountain grammy Mar 2016 #66
chervilant Mar 2016 #99
Plucketeer Mar 2016 #68
chervilant Mar 2016 #100
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #120
ybbor Mar 2016 #166
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #5
Duval Mar 2016 #56
SomeGuyInEagan Mar 2016 #69
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #121
CrispyQ Mar 2016 #71
chervilant Mar 2016 #102
mpcamb Mar 2016 #135
dchill Mar 2016 #26
dlwickham Mar 2016 #27
djean111 Mar 2016 #31
dlwickham Mar 2016 #32
greiner3 Mar 2016 #43
dlwickham Mar 2016 #117
Diremoon Mar 2016 #183
Iwillnevergiveup Mar 2016 #192
Duval Mar 2016 #58
stopbush Mar 2016 #97
RoccoR5955 Mar 2016 #198
Peace Patriot Mar 2016 #88
dlwickham Mar 2016 #118
Peace Patriot Mar 2016 #125
dlwickham Mar 2016 #131
Peace Patriot Mar 2016 #156
appalachiablue Mar 2016 #163
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #122
Paka Mar 2016 #155
Pauldg47 Mar 2016 #191
rock Apr 2016 #227
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #33
PatrynXX Mar 2016 #78
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #103
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #123
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #124
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #128
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #132
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #134
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #136
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #137
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #138
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #139
Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #142
kristopher Apr 2016 #233
kristopher Mar 2016 #161
harun Mar 2016 #202
ozone_man Mar 2016 #159
onehandle Mar 2016 #3
retrowire Mar 2016 #11
dorkzilla Mar 2016 #22
roguevalley Mar 2016 #73
MisterFred Mar 2016 #17
stopbush Mar 2016 #98
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #106
stopbush Mar 2016 #110
MisterFred Mar 2016 #187
stopbush Mar 2016 #189
MisterFred Mar 2016 #219
jmowreader Mar 2016 #194
RoccoR5955 Mar 2016 #196
MisterFred Mar 2016 #220
MisterFred Mar 2016 #185
stopbush Mar 2016 #190
RoccoR5955 Mar 2016 #197
stopbush Mar 2016 #203
RoccoR5955 Mar 2016 #207
MisterFred Mar 2016 #221
stopbush Mar 2016 #222
MisterFred Apr 2016 #224
stopbush Apr 2016 #225
MisterFred Apr 2016 #228
stopbush Apr 2016 #229
MisterFred Apr 2016 #230
stopbush Apr 2016 #231
MisterFred Apr 2016 #232
stopbush Apr 2016 #234
MisterFred Apr 2016 #235
stopbush Apr 2016 #236
MisterFred Apr 2016 #237
Javaman Mar 2016 #204
LAS14 Mar 2016 #213
LAS14 Mar 2016 #214
Rebkeh Mar 2016 #4
chervilant Mar 2016 #7
7wo7rees Mar 2016 #8
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #37
KPN Mar 2016 #59
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #64
KPN Mar 2016 #119
Paka Mar 2016 #157
GeorgeGist Mar 2016 #63
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #67
truebluegreen Mar 2016 #72
BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #10
TexasBushwhacker Mar 2016 #18
BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #20
LAS14 Mar 2016 #212
riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #51
BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #91
riversedge Mar 2016 #127
shireen Mar 2016 #12
chervilant Mar 2016 #14
c-ville rook Mar 2016 #13
chervilant Mar 2016 #15
jwirr Mar 2016 #21
chervilant Mar 2016 #104
beltanefauve Mar 2016 #85
chervilant Mar 2016 #105
SammyWinstonJack Mar 2016 #24
dchill Mar 2016 #29
chervilant Mar 2016 #34
A Simple Game Mar 2016 #61
mark67 Mar 2016 #25
chervilant Mar 2016 #35
TBF Mar 2016 #55
Jitter65 Mar 2016 #81
Scootaloo Mar 2016 #77
redstateblues Mar 2016 #79
Scootaloo Mar 2016 #82
redstateblues Mar 2016 #178
Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #126
bvar22 Mar 2016 #146
n2doc Mar 2016 #195
SmittynMo Mar 2016 #28
chervilant Mar 2016 #36
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #46
beltanefauve Mar 2016 #80
BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #149
Fla Dem Mar 2016 #154
onecaliberal Mar 2016 #30
stopbush Mar 2016 #101
Roland99 Mar 2016 #38
chervilant Mar 2016 #40
SmittynMo Mar 2016 #44
Roland99 Mar 2016 #47
Amimnoch Mar 2016 #39
Blue_Adept Mar 2016 #45
Dustlawyer Mar 2016 #52
Amimnoch Mar 2016 #60
Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #109
Dustlawyer Mar 2016 #111
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #167
Amimnoch Mar 2016 #216
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #223
stopbush Mar 2016 #57
muktiman Mar 2016 #41
chervilant Mar 2016 #50
CrowCityDem Mar 2016 #42
Sheepshank Mar 2016 #48
chervilant Mar 2016 #49
SaschaHM Mar 2016 #53
Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #112
stopbush Mar 2016 #54
2banon Mar 2016 #84
stopbush Mar 2016 #89
2banon Mar 2016 #162
stopbush Mar 2016 #171
2banon Mar 2016 #173
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #168
stopbush Mar 2016 #172
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #176
klook Mar 2016 #65
c-ville rook Mar 2016 #70
Boomer Mar 2016 #74
chervilant Mar 2016 #92
strategery blunder Mar 2016 #169
chervilant Mar 2016 #179
dcbuckeye Mar 2016 #75
chervilant Mar 2016 #93
dchill Mar 2016 #76
Fla Dem Mar 2016 #83
frylock Mar 2016 #86
TBF Mar 2016 #90
chervilant Mar 2016 #114
chervilant Mar 2016 #94
Eko Mar 2016 #87
chervilant Mar 2016 #95
stopbush Mar 2016 #108
Eko Mar 2016 #153
WhiteTara Mar 2016 #107
chervilant Mar 2016 #113
WhiteTara Mar 2016 #115
chervilant Mar 2016 #116
merrily Mar 2016 #129
chervilant Mar 2016 #133
merrily Mar 2016 #140
chervilant Mar 2016 #141
merrily Mar 2016 #143
chervilant Mar 2016 #144
merrily Mar 2016 #145
chervilant Mar 2016 #147
merrily Mar 2016 #148
chervilant Mar 2016 #150
merrily Mar 2016 #151
riversedge Mar 2016 #130
avaistheone1 Mar 2016 #152
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #175
Depaysement Mar 2016 #158
chervilant Mar 2016 #164
AzDar Mar 2016 #160
chervilant Mar 2016 #165
kadaholo Mar 2016 #184
AzDar Mar 2016 #186
kadaholo Mar 2016 #188
chervilant Mar 2016 #201
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #170
chervilant Mar 2016 #180
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #181
LuvLoogie Mar 2016 #177
ish of the hammer Mar 2016 #182
chervilant Mar 2016 #199
ish of the hammer Mar 2016 #209
chervilant Mar 2016 #210
ish of the hammer Mar 2016 #211
chervilant Mar 2016 #217
ish of the hammer Mar 2016 #218
BernersFaceFacts Mar 2016 #193
chervilant Mar 2016 #200
BernersFaceFacts Mar 2016 #215
chervilant Mar 2016 #205
LAS14 Mar 2016 #206
chervilant Mar 2016 #208
RandySF Apr 2016 #226
silvershadow Apr 2016 #238

Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:39 AM

1. If Hillary gets the nomination this way, it is bogus, and I think I will be out.

 

And please don't maunder on about the "popular vote" - that would only count if all the primaries not caucuses. To use that number is bullshit. Not to mention how many people have been turned away for one shit reason or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:48 AM

2. I couldn't agree more.

I am saddened by the relentless attacks on those of us who support Bernie Sanders--those of us who recognize that he is the touchstone for our spirited and sincere efforts to reclaim our democracy.

I can tell you this, I LOVE Senator Sanders for his passion, his integrity, AND his willingness to undertake this arduous task when he could be at home with his family and his littlies. I will NEVER forget this incredible man. Already, in my estimation, he ranks up there with all the renowned, incredible activists worldwide who've given their time and often their lives in their quest for peace, unity, and an end to racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:09 PM

6. We could not agree with you more! Beautifully written.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7wo7rees (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:12 PM

9. I'm glad that so many of us feel this way.

AND, I'm glad that we're finding unity through Senator Sanders--and this, our peaceful revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:27 PM

16. Nicely done; I agree with you entirely.

I think Bernie will do better in NY than anyone expects. Sure, there is the Wall St. crowd but there is also Occupy! Nina Turner's rev up for Team Bernie in Brooklyn last week lit volunteers on fire. Upstate, they like Bernie if bumper stickers and yard signs mean anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellerpup (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:30 PM

19. I remain hopeful.

I live in a state where Trump is viewed as the "great savior" of our democracy, because "he's not afraid to say what he thinks." Still, I view these last five of Bernie's victories as indicators of what we can expect throughout the remaining states.

Feeling the BERN!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:33 PM

23. Red state blues...

I'm originally from Oklahoma, so I hear you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:32 PM

62. I also, could not agree more.

He would be THE President of my lifetime.

Anyone else is a fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:05 PM

96. I am so glad I've lived to witness this.

I love how Bernie brings people together. He has already created positive change!

(Plus, little birdies LOVE him!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:39 PM

66. I love what you said there..

thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #66)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:06 PM

99. Thank you, right back!

I live in the mountains, but I am the only one of six sisters who chose to remain childless, so I don't qualify as a grammy. I sure do want to advocate for our younglings, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:51 PM

68. MY feelings to a T!

 

This man (and his whole family - let's not forget that they're ALL impacted personally by Bernie's pursuit) is at a point in his life that most of us are hoping to be retired by! And you can tell that there's NO seeking of recognition for himself in his quest - it's all for the people that support him and those that don't as well. We're intensely lucky to have this blemish-proof leader taking on the establishment on behalf of those who get screwed by it!

This household LOVES you, Bernie Sanders!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #68)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:08 PM

100. Well, you know,

I expected this OP to sink into oblivion, so I'm thrilled that so many of us are discussing this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 05:59 PM

120. I'd put him up there with Jesus

Never felt that way about anyone in my 51 years...

I love what Jesus stood for, and abhor the religious right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:36 PM

166. Hear, hear

I am so much a fan of Bernie! He is so inspiring, and his feeling that we can do this. It is about us and he is simply one of us, he just has the ability to be our leader. He truly cares about our needs and requirements to survive in today's world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:01 PM

5. This is part of the rigging by the Clinton camp

I looked over who the super delegates are in my state. The list reads like a Who's Who of Hillary Clinton fans.

The super delegates are all party stalwarts who are guaranteed to vote for Clinton. Regardless of how the constituents in their states vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:19 PM

56. Dammit!!

 

What can we do about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:53 PM

69. "What can we do about this?"

Follow the money, always ...

“'In our research from 2008, campaign contributions for Obama and Clinton predicted endorsements for them 80 percent of the time,”'said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog that studied those contributions.

In other words, the presidential candidate who gave money to a superdelegate usually got that delegate’s vote. Krumholz said there’s a strong correlation, but not a clear cut quid pro quo."

Marketplace Money: "The power of superdelegates and campaign contributions" 3/1/16
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/01/world/power-superdelegates-and-campaign-contributions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:02 PM

121. More corruption...

It's sickening

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:56 PM

71. Mine too.

Super delegates listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Click on the "State" field to sort by State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #71)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:12 PM

102. Thank you

for this link. It is very informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:28 PM

135. "This is part of the rigging by the Clinton camp"

I'd LOVE to know what this super delegate gets out of a Clinton candidacy...

Money, Position, Favors, hey gang, it's politics and when something smells funny, like refusal to support an 80% candidate, there's a reason. And, there's always a payback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:37 PM

26. "one shit reason or another."

Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:40 PM

27. the rules had been established for years

Bernie certainly should have known about them before he ran

Tad Devine certainly knew about the superdelegates since he helped in creating them

sounds like sour grapes on the part of some

rules aren't changed in the middle of the game because one side is losing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:43 PM

31. Bottom line - not voting for a Third Way Neocon hawk.

 

If a Third Way Neocon hawk is representative of the party, and if super-delegates are more important to the party than actual voters, then obviously the party has morphed into something not democratic and not Democratic, as I define it for myself. And I am the only person who gets to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:44 PM

32. thank goodness people like you are in the minority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:53 PM

43. Not at DU

 

So it seems to be in realityas the prior poster typed it is so in the non Democratic (pun intended) world of the DNC💩

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:45 PM

117. is DU reality?

I'd say no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #117)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:43 AM

183. Dose of reality

It is precisely this attitude from Hills and her supporters that have soured me on voting for her. When this campaign started, I would have voted for whoever the dem candidate was. I argued with people to convince them that that was the only reasonable thing to do. But we are starting to see just how republican Hills, and her supporters can be.
I don't feel that I owe my vote to anyone. And I sure as hell won't vote for someone that I think is going to screw me over, regardless of which party they are in.
It is time to write to Peters and Stabenow and convince them to change their votes. Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. I'm in this till the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diremoon (Reply #183)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:55 AM

192. Yes, I'm really disgusted

with my House rep, Xavier Becerra in CA. Think I'll write to him because he held multiple town meetings in support of Social Security. Although he piled on for Hillary last August, so there's still plenty of time for him to change his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:21 PM

58. Not in the minority. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:05 PM

97. Well, at least in the minority who are voting in the primaries

as Hillary is kicking Bernie's ass in the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:13 AM

198. True

 

Because Neo-Con War Hawk Corporatists are more of what the Democratic Party needs, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:19 PM

88. "the rules"? Is it a "rule" that SDs defy nearly their entire electorate...

...and vote instead for their big donors?

Is massive vote suppression now a "rule" of the Clinton DNC as well?

Is declaring war on your voters even before they've voted (NY SDs) a new "rule"?

Are foul dirty tricks by David Brock (who smeared an African American woman named Anita Hill) now the "rule" in Democratic politics?

Are Henry Fucking Kissinger and Robert ("Project for a New American Century" Kagan now our rulers on foreign policy and war? Is the "rule" for Democratic leaders now the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Are the "rules" for foreign policy now pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation (you pays your money, you get your foreign policy)?

The Clinton campaign gets more disgusting every day. And if it keeps up this shite, it is going to destroy the Democratic Party.

As for Clinton and her foreign policy advisers, they will destroy the entire world, including destroying the very habitability of our planet, for a cushy berth on the Titanic. Disgusting is not a strong enough word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:57 PM

118. superdelegates don't have an electorate to answer to

Jimmy Carter is a superdelegate. Al Gore is one as well. Who do they have to answer to if they choose to vote for a candidate at the national convention?

Superdelegates are named by the DNC not by grassroot voters.

Bernie knew that going into the process. He's one himself. Who does he answer to as a superdelegate? It wasn't the people of Vermont who chose him as one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #118)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:16 PM

125. Most of them DO have to answer to an electorate, when they run next time or...

...as party officials trying to get their candidates elected, this year or in the future. Gore and Carter are very atypical SDs. And even they have a stake in the party's electoral success and party organization.

If the SDs defy THEIR ELECTORATE, they will tear the Democratic Party to pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #125)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:25 PM

131. do you truly not understand how the process works

or are you just being obtuse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #131)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:41 PM

156. I understand it perfectly well--with FIFTY-PLUS YEARS as a Democratic voter,

supporter and activist. And you are wrong. The Super Delegates are unpledged but they are most certainly answerable to the voters. Or maybe they have a deal with ES&S/Diebold and the voters really and truly don't matter any more?

The voters will SIT ON THEIR HANDS in November if this arrogance and snottery continues that the SD's do not have an obligation to the voters. It's true in states that Clinton actually won, and it's true in states that Sanders has won, and it's true in states that are ties or near ties, as to proportional representation among the SD's. And it will continue to be true in the rest of the primaries, including NY where the SDs have announced that NONE OF THEM will vote for Sanders NO MATTER WHAT THE VOTERS SAY.

You want to lose the election AND the Democratic Party? You do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #156)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:56 PM

163. Great job, thanx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:05 PM

122. Peace Patriot - your post rules!

Love it! I want to scream it from the rooftops!

Peace!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:37 PM

155. +1

Stated well. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:34 AM

191. Revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:05 PM

227. Shhh!

It's fun to see the BSers running around like a chicken with it's head cut off, even though nothing is wrong (at least not what they're complaining about, it's 100% legit!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:45 PM

33. You already stated several times you were out

 

This statement is like trying to add a nail in a coffin that has already been buried for months.....or it's continued threats. Either way, the statement is bogus imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:28 PM

78. right thats why Iowans

demanded the actual count. the actual count is actually done. so popular vote is still counted in Iowa. can't say about other states. it is on the popular vote they do a math equation to get the SDE or whatever..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:14 PM

103. And if Trump deports millions and destroys the lives of millions more, no problem, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #103)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:09 PM

123. Oh, I'm soooo scared of the Trump boogie man.....

Lol lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #123)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:10 PM

124. Must not know any Muslims or Latinos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #124)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:24 PM

128. Vote for Hillary or Trump will get you....

What a great endorsement

Hillary, she's not a Trump....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #128)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:26 PM

132. One will cause millions of Americans great harm and suffering , one wont.

But as long as it doesn't bother you, right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #132)


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #132)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:33 PM

136. I'm sorry is the Repub concention over.

Oh nope.... So why even throw out the Trump boogie man.

I'm quite certain in my belief of which of all the candidates will cause the most damage.
It's a no brainier to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #136)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:33 PM

137. So you believe Hillary will be worse for America or planet earth than either Trump or Cruz?

I must misunderstand you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #137)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:39 PM

138. I believe you are throwing out the tTrump boogie man....

Sad hen the Dems make a case to support their nom choice in this way.

Vote for Hillary, she's not Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #138)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:39 PM

139. Didnt you just say you knew who of all the candidates was the worst, and didnt you mean Hillary?

If not, say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #139)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:43 PM

142. First you try scare tactics, now you're making demands?

Yes I said I knew which candidate is the worst, but I certainly don't have to share that with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #139)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 09:03 PM

233. I'm so glad that, as you've repeatedly asserted, you're a Bernie supporter...

I now recognize that you're playing 7th dimensional chess and the rest of us are clearly so dumb we can't understand how the way you're behaving in this thread is ProBernie. Please be patient with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #137)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:45 PM

161. H's 5thC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #128)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:37 AM

202. LOL, It went from "Hillary, not as nasty as the GOP" to "Hillary, or Trump will get you!"


Both being losing strategies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:03 PM

159. I'm with you.

This has been a primary filled with more Clinton corruption. They know no bounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:48 AM

3. IT'S A CONSPIRACY! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:16 PM

11. looks like fact to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:32 PM

22. Seriously. Post something like this, and that's their response?

Instead of thoughtful insight, they think they're mocking us with their "Conspiracy!" crap.

Why would you Even.Fucking.Bother.

Ugh, another one for the ignore can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkzilla (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:08 PM

73. they love their chains

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:27 PM

17. Uh...

Are you trying to convince me that super-delegates don't overwhelmingly favor Clinton? Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:06 PM

98. Well, she is the DEMOCRAT in the race.

Can't blame Democratic super delegates for favoring the Democrat, can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #98)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:16 PM

106. You kind of can, in that Bernie is running as a Democrat.

Problem with all of this is so many here and out there are putting their personal feelings and needs above the needs of everybody else if they sit out the election, on either side.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #106)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:25 PM

110. But BS is also currently running as an Independent as a Senate candidate in 2018.

He is already raising $ for his 2018 Senate run, and as an Independent, not as a D.

NOT a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:04 AM

187. Fine. I want a non-Democrat for president in 2016.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #187)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:30 AM

189. Then what are you doing on Democratic Underground?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #189)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:21 PM

219. Reading news and hoping Sanders gets elected.

You?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #187)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:03 AM

194. With that attitude you may very well get your wish

"I, Donald J. Trump, do solemnly swear..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #194)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:07 AM

196. No,

 

but I am certain that a lot of Clinton supporters secretly want Drumpf for president, because the polls show that Clinton does not win by as much a margin as Bernie does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #194)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:22 PM

220. The only chance of the Democrats losing to Trump

Is if Clinton is the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #98)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:03 AM

185. Will I blame them if they defy the will of the voters?

Yes. Yes, I will. It'll break the party, at least for an election. And it should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #185)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:32 AM

190. Bernie is the only person asking the supers to defy the

will of the voters.

How'd you miss that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #98)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:09 AM

197. No there are TWO Democrats in the race

 

Bernie is NOW a Democrat. Get over it.
He did not leave the Democratic Party, the Party left him, when they went corporate.
Bernie is more an FDR Democrat than a crappy Third Way Democrat.
Bernie has ALWAYS caucused with Democrats as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #197)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:51 AM

203. Sanders is only a D for the presidential race. He has announced as

an Independent for his 2018 Senate race and is currently raising money for that race.

Do YOU have two different party affiliations? Bernie does. He's only a D right now because - as he admitted - he is USING the D Party for his own personal gain.

He's no Democrat, trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #203)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:38 AM

207. As a matter of fact I do

 

I am a Working Family's Party member, a member of the Democratic Party, a member of The Socialist Labor Party, and a member of The Green Party.
I am currently registered for voting purposes as member of the Democratic Party.
Why can I only have ONE party membership?

Bernie certainly is a Democrat. And FDR Democrat, not a Third Way, Neocon corporatist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #203)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:25 PM

221. Well, ok then.

It's because of attitudes like yours (and Clinton's) that I refuse to register as a member of America's conservative party: the Democrats. Message me when you decide to stop kicking liberals in the shins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #221)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:40 PM

222. I've been a D since 1972.

Back then we didn't whine and complain that the mean old D faithful wouldn't coddle we newbies. We joined up and fought the liberal fight against Nam and Nixon and racism.

If a little kick in the shins is too much for you, please, don't join the Ds. Enlist with the milquetoast Independents by all means. Ds need people who can take a little pushback. We don't need people who take their toys and go home at the first sign of trouble.

Message me when you grow a thicker skin. It's a necessity in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #222)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:21 AM

224. Heh.

Your thicker skin has become a tolerance of corruption. Go back to your roots and embrace actually fighting the good fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #224)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:45 PM

225. Drinking the Bernie kool ade, are we?

Your naivety is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #225)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 03:38 PM

228. Oh, yeah, Clinton is clean as a whistle.

*rolls eyes*

Never taken a stance against progressive positions or civil rights.

*rolls eyes*

When did she FINALLY accept the idea of gay marriage again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #228)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:20 PM

229. Does it matter? She's going to be the nominee, not Bernie.

Roll your eyes all you want. Support her or don't. It won't make any difference. She's going to be the next president.

And Bernie will go back to being a back bencher like he always has been, taking the easy way out by not committing to an actual political party, playing it safe by glomming onto the actual work the Dems do when it suits his agenda.

He is such a coward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #229)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:52 AM

230. Heh.

Says the anonymous guy spending all day on the internet attacking people he doesn't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #230)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 11:10 AM

231. Whatever fantasy you need to get thru the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #229)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:57 PM

232. It only matters if you value integrity.

Obviously, you don't. You value courage in corruption, or some such.

That, or refreshing the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #232)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 12:40 AM

234. Bernie has no integrity at all.

Everything he said he wouldn't do, he's doing.

Such a coward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #234)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 03:12 AM

235. What, did you run out of material? That was weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterFred (Reply #235)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 03:52 AM

236. Is it integrity when you say you won't run a negative campaign

then lie about Hillary in your stump speech?

Is it integrity when you allow your followers to boo the mention of Hillary's name when you mention it in your stump speech?

Is it integrity to rail against Hillary taking $ from the oil industry when you're taking money from them as well?

Is it integrity to argue against the super delegates overturning the will of the pledged delegates then taking the opposite view when you realize that the supers ignoring the vote of the people and voting for you is the only chance you have to win?

How much integrity is involved in taking millions of $ in illegal campaign contributions that get flagged by the FEC?

How much integrity is involved in saying that it would be hypocritical for you to ever run as a D, then turning around and running as a D?

How much integrity is involved in running as a D not because you believe in the D platform, but because - as you admitted - it would be easier for you to raise $ and get on TV if you ran as a D?

How much integrity is involved in stealing voter information from Hillary's campaign?

Bernie has no integrity. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #236)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:54 AM

237. That's quite a list of grievances.

But if you can't anticipate the very obvious (and dismissive) answers to those questions, then you haven't been paying attention.

You don't change someone's mind by attacking their conclusion. You change their mind by attacking their underlying premises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:51 AM

204. hit and run post with no retort in the face of overwelming facts.

well played. >lone person slow clapping in full theater<

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:27 PM

214. I assume this is a tongue in cheek..

... dig at Sanders' supporters??

Not serious, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:50 AM

4. I hope this get thousands of views! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebkeh (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:09 PM

7. Me, too!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebkeh (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:10 PM

8. Keep it "K n R" and it just might. :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebkeh (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:48 PM

37. I hope those thousands educate themselves to the roll of Super Delegates....

 

Vs. the whims and whines of those that don't understand it. It's the pattern of the perpetually outraged that because they've never bothered to research anything since it's so much easier to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon without a shred of actual facts, rules of the party and roles of Delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:21 PM

59. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us on the role of Superdelegates then?

That might be received better than calling those who are concerned about Superdelegates and the appearance of circumventing democratic process such things as uneducated, perpetually outraged, lazy and "conspiracy" prone.

Explain their role please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #59)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:34 PM

64. Look all over DU in the lst couple of days it's been explained over and over...

 

I've done so myself several times (even on this thread)....look it up. Get yourself educated, that's not my job. I prefer to point out the ridiculous assertions made by this who have no idea what is happening with their own party rules.

While you are at it, you will find out why there are Super Delegates that will vote for Bernie (Alan Grayson), regardless of how the State of Florida goes. Check it out, it's not that hard. There is a whole world of information you should gather for yourself, rather than relying on the limited and narrow scope I may offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 05:23 PM

119. Lol!

That'S what I thought. You can't provide an explanation that comport with basic democratic principles. Already knew that but thought I w/b gracious enough to give you a chance. The rationale I've seen flies in the face of basic principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #119)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:49 PM

157. In the very words of DWS...

...the cadre of SD's are in place to prevent some "upstart, grassroots challenger" (hmmmm, wonder who that might be?) from being the nominee. SD's insure that the party has control.

But he knew that all along. It just doesn't sound all that democratic when it is articulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:32 PM

63. Sounds like Republican rules ...

not democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:41 PM

67. Republican rules are Different than DNC rues for Super Delegates

 

and you are in part correct...RNC nominates 3 Super Delegates for each states. And Super Delegates are supposed to vote in favor of the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state they represent.

Republican Rules is the method being touted by so many Bernie supporters.

Unfortunately in 2016, it's not how Super Delegates function in the DNC. I can tell you, that the role of Super Delegates is to represent the will of the party who chooses the Presidential candidate and generally casts their votes with that provision in mind.

......I'd bet $1,000,000 that the RNC wishes they didn't recently change their Super Delegate rules and had something more akin to what the DNC does lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #67)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:58 PM

72. So they could overturn the primary voters

 

if the result is not what they wish? How very, very, very democratic of them. One man, one vote? Nah. No one "more equal" than another? Nah. Oligarchy? Yup.

Btw, if the role of Super Delegates was to represent the will of the party--as opposed to the Party--there would be no fucking reason for them to exist at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:12 PM

10. Good for her!

Truly, this SBS supporter does not understand the SD concept. He should ask Tad Devine to explain it to him because Tad was instrumental in its creation.

What this supporter - and others like him - also fail to recognize is that if SDs were required to follow the decision of the majority in their states, Hillary Clinton would have an even larger lead in SDs right now. They need to do the math and see this for themselves. As it is, while a majority of SDs have endorsed Hillary and a small number have endorsed Bernie, there are still several who have not yet announced their support for either candidate and are still presumably in play.

Being swarmed by supporters of one candidate who demand that SDs support that candidate in spite of their own personal experience with and preference for the other will very likely result in SDs digging in even deeper for the candidate of their choice and disliking those, and by extension their candidate, who attempt to force their preferences on them. This psychological fact appears totally lost in the shuffle and brouhaha but is demonstrated vividly in this case.

This fact also works in Hillary's favor because it is not Hillary supporters who are doing the swarming. As a Hillary supporter, I say "Bring it on!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:29 PM

18. I'm a Sanders supporter and I agree with you

I don't have a problem trying to get more SD votes for Sanders, but SDs already committed to Clinton aren't exactly low hanging fruit. There are still over 200 uncommitted SDs. Approach them first and do it respectfully. Maybe it's a southern thing, but I still think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I've been criticized for that approach (Fuck that shit!) but I stand by it. JMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:31 PM

20. Honey rather than vinegar is definitely

the better strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:22 PM

212. Good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:14 PM

51. Devine is only responsible for the proportional allocation of delegates

 

Before it used to be "winner take all."

The super delegates are another element which Tad Devine had no part in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:46 PM

91. According to this,

Devine's role in the creation of the SD process was more significant than you believe.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/super-delegates-center-democratic-nomination-fight-again-n516891

The superdelegates became part of the Democratic nominating process in 1982 to ensure the Democratic party has input on who the nominee is. They wanted to prevent another election like 1972's when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination, but lost every state minus one.

Ironically, Tad Devine, Sanders' top adviser, who was instrumental in the creation of the superdelegate process, defended their existence.


Here's an article written by Tad himself. http://www.pollingreport.com/delegates.htm He knows ALL about how the system works. It is disingenuous of him - or of Bernie, by extension - to pretend otherwise.

As for Devine's responsibility in developing the proportional allocation of delegates, I cannot find any link that bears that out. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #91)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:22 PM

127. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:19 PM

12. I don't think Hillary will be able to win via superdelegates

Unless the Democratic party is absolutely incredibly stupid.

If they even try to do it, the backlash will destroy them and we may see the first Independent president elected without political party support.

The Democratic establishment knows that either Bernie or Hillary could easily defeat Trump. To sabotage that opportunity just so Clinton can win the nomination via superdelegate count will be self-destructive on so many levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shireen (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:24 PM

14. This entire situation reminds me of the proverbial "Chinese curse" --

"May you live in interesting times."

While the provenance of this bon mot is suspect, I think it richly describes what we're witnessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:21 PM

13. Apparently it is your civic duty to vote

Unless Kim Metcalfe disagrees with it. In which case she will nullify a few thousand votes with her own. And tell you why you do not understand the world while she is at it.

I think that annoyed me the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to c-ville rook (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:26 PM

15. Our younglings

are getting involved in politics on an unprecedented level, due largely to the existence of people like this "super-delegate" -- even the existence of "super-delegates" is anathema to many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to c-ville rook (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:31 PM

21. That does seem to be the whole of it. I am actually crying.

As a lifetime Democrat it is very painful to realize who my party has failed since 1992. Damn the DLC and the traitors in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:15 PM

104. I have to agree.

Plus, I have felt shell-shocked after many of my encounters with Hi11ary supporters, so much so that I have most of them on my IL.

I am thrilled that my fellow Bernie supporters are supportive, compassionate, informed voters.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to c-ville rook (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:51 PM

85. Arrogance!

I really object to someone like you who has probably done nothing except caucus telling me what to do

Nothing but caucus??? A young person gets involved, maybe for the first time, and this is the way she gets treated!

IOW, just shut up and vote. And eat your peas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beltanefauve (Reply #85)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:15 PM

105. Indeed!

It's rather telling, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:34 PM

24. Blame Bernie's supporters..when she planned all along as a

super delegate, to vote Hillary.

Typical Hillary supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:42 PM

29. Nail meets hammer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:46 PM

34. Unfortunately,

like their candidate, many Hi11ary supporters are in react mode. It's not a comfortable space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:32 PM

61. It appears she thinks it will be more acceptable to vote against someone

using a few of his supporters as an excuse than it is to vote for someone because of their body parts.

Unless she comes up with a better reason, I have to assume that is why she is voting for Hillary, body parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:35 PM

25. McGovern...Dean..Gore...Nader...Kerry...Sanders...

Either you are incredibly young or incredibly naďve if you don't see how this will turn out.

If Sanders gets the nomination his remarks about Fidel Castro and the label "socialist" will air nonstop for the next 6 months. Most Americans are not enlightened...elections are won and lost on these trivialities.

But if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote for him. Too much is at stake this year and I hope disillusioned Sanders supporters don't decide to sit this one out in the general.

Trump is not Bob Dole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mark67 (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:47 PM

35. We'll just have to wait and see...

Won't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mark67 (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:18 PM

55. Dean and Nader were not democratic nominees -

and Gore had the popular vote - only lost because of cheating in FL/Supreme Court.

"Too much is at stake this year" is repeated over and over - yet you are running a candidate who couldn't even beat the little known Barack Obama in 2008. Enough with the swinging at leftists.

If you run Hillary and she loses it is on the Third Way. It is not the fault of the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:32 PM

81. Neither is Bernie, really.

 

An I for most of his political life doesn't make him a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mark67 (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:22 PM

77. You want to talk reality?

 

We're coming out of a two-term democratic presidency. Winning a third term is pretty hard for any party to do. And our presumptive nominee has nothing to offer, except that she's not a Republican. That plays well with hardcore party loyalists, but you can't win an election with just that nugget of absolutists.

We're coming into a hard stretch, one that has almost never seen victory without the previous presdient dying in office, and we're offering, what, a stopgap? A candidate that has little to no appeal to the majority if Americans, beyond hteir slightly higher disgust for the presumptive Republican nominee? A candidate that has very openly, very ardently made it clear that she's completely willing, even eager, to discard over a third of her own party in an effort to make goody-goody with the very people she's running as a stopgap against?

Trump isn't Bob Dole, but Clinton is looking a lot like Mondale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #77)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:28 PM

79. Mondale, like Bernie, ran on raising taxes on the middle class

He won ONE state. His home state MN. Surely the Republicans wouldn't use that video against Bernie in the GE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:35 PM

82. We're talking about Clinton, chief, do keep up.

 

You want to snarl about bernie, i'm sure you can make a dozen or so OP's in the HRC group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #82)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:58 PM

178. No snarling just Unpleasant truth for you

I didn't bring up Mondale

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:17 PM

126. upper middle class

$250k per year and above

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mark67 (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:50 PM

146. So what?

The Republicans will label Hillary a "Socialist" too,
just like they have done for every single Democratic nominee since FDR,
so your complaint holds no water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mark67 (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:01 AM

195. Funny, Kerry was pretty similar to HRC

Both pro Iraq War, both Establishment, Both lacking in the ability to generate enthusiasm. Enjoy your repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:41 PM

28. These politician are put in office

to support the wants of the majority. Not giving your vote to a person that deserved it, is wrong. Your personal feelings should NEVER interfere. Your job is to represent the people. Sorry, but Metcalfe has proven she's another establishment politician and has to go.

What's she's doing should be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmittynMo (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:48 PM

36. Thankfully,

most people recognize precisely what you've said.

Indeed, what she's doing should be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmittynMo (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:01 PM

46. Super Delegates are not always elected officials

 

Super Delegates often represent the will of the Party. Primary voting is NOT an election, its a poll. Right now, a majority of the votes are going to Hillary. For right now, the Super Delegates and the DNC appear to be representing the will of the majority of the people.

Certainly, rules concerning the role of Super Delegates can be changed within the party...maybe to something more akin to what the Republicans do....but I can tell you that right now, today the RNC wishes they had not changed their rules and had something more similar to what the Dems use.

No Candidate for POTUS has to align themselves with a party and then can avoid the mess of Primaries and Delegate counts. The Primary for DNC and RNC is merely a way to make a party nomination. Bernie knew the Primary rules when he decided to align himself with the party he despised, until very recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:30 PM

80. So

"...today the RNC wishes they had not changed their rules and had something more similar to what the Dems use."

The RNC wishes they could rig the nominations so Trump doesn't get it.

Just like the DNC wants to rig the nomination for Hillary.

I get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmittynMo (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:00 PM

149. Well, it isn't illegal.

It's a rule of the Democratic party. One may not like it, but if one chooses to run as a Democrat, one follows the rules of the Democratic party. Per the rules of the Democratic party, anyone who is designated as a SD may endorse the candidate of their choice, notwithstanding the votes in their state.

This particular individual was NOT elected at all, btw. Since the SD issue keeps repeating itself ad nauseam, please actually check it out for yourself. See, e.g., the 2016 SDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

This list tracks current support for given candidates among the approximately 719 unpledged delegates (commonly known as superdelegates) who will cast a vote at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, to be held July 25–28 in Philadelphia.[1] Unpledged delegates represent about a sixth of the overall delegate count (approximately 4,770) and come from several categories of prominent Democratic Party members:

20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, vice-presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs
21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia)
46 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates)
435 elected members of the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state's Democratic Party)

Superdelegates are "unpledged" in the sense that they themselves decide which candidate to support. (In other words, they are not allocated according to voter preferences as the majority of delegates are.) Pledged delegates can change their vote if no candidate is elected on the first ballot and can even vote for a different candidate on the first ballot if they are "released" by the candidate they are pledged to. Superdelegates, on the other hand, can change their vote purely of their own volition.


If you find this "undemocratic" and insist that SDs MUST follow the will of the voters in their states by endorsing the candidate who won the majority of votes, then think about what that actually means. Other than its actually being impossible to change for this election cycle, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

So far Hillary has won the majority of pledged delegates and is ahead by more than 2.5 million popular votes. She has won Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Northern Marianas, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona. If she were to automatically receive ALL SDs from these states based on her wins there, she would actually have MORE SDs than she has now.

Certainly in this scenario, Bernie would also have more SDs than he has now based on his wins. But for the most part, his wins have not occurred in populous or diverse states/territories that have as many SDs and so he would thus still be behind.

As it happens, some of Bernie's current SDs actually come from states where Hillary has won. But you do not see Hillary supporters swarming them or those SDs who are still in play to go against their preferences.

Those states remaining in the cycle that have both the most pledged delegates and the most SDs are largely Hillary-friendly states. Whether she actually wins there or not (and she certainly is likely to in closed primaries especially), so long as she continues to accumulate delegates in significant numbers - as she will - she will most likely remain in the lead overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmittynMo (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:35 PM

154. You clearly don't understand the role of super delegates

Please read responses 83 & 149. Super Delagates have absolutely no obligation to voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:42 PM

30. Why the hell does this woman think her vote trumps thousands?

This is why, ALOT of people will NEVER EVER vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:10 PM

101. Because it does.

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:48 PM

38. The superdelegate issue was to counteract very weak general election candidates

I don't think we have that issue this year. Sanders blows all GOP opponents out of the water (while Hillary loses to some of them according to RealClearPolitics general election poll results)

Sanders is obviously the most electable in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:50 PM

40. Such a good point!

When I look at the surveys you've mentioned, I cannot understand why anyone supports Hi11ary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:55 PM

44. Sanders is obviously the most electable in the general?

I agree, but that's if he makes the general. Illegal shit like this will stop it from happening, therefore we all get screwed and the establishment wins again. I CALL BULLSHIT!!!

This shit has to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmittynMo (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:01 PM

47. I could not agree more! And, to me, if I was a superdelegate, that's what I would consider!!!

Millennials will shun Hillary as well as real progressives/liberals who are SICK AND TIRED of the establishment BS and the long, steady shift to the right for the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:50 PM

39. Metcalfe says it PERFECTLY.

Thanks for the link!

METCALFE: I’m in the pocket of no one. I have no financial connections to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. I am a retired union representative. I put in my time in the trenches for 40 years, and I really object to someone like you who has probably done nothing except caucus telling me what to do. I am voting for the best interests of my country. And that would be Hillary Clinton.


This is NOT a vote for president, this is a vote for who will represent the Democratic Party ticket in the run for President.

The system was NOT setup after Bernie changed his party affiliation, and threw his hat into the race about a year ago.

Superdelegates like Metcalfe have EARNED their position and right to have a greater voice. Just like those few who have thrown in for Bernie have earned there.

If Bernie doesn't like the system then he shouldn't be on the ticket.

Good for Metcalfe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:56 PM

45. Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:14 PM

52. I have work many Democratic campaigns along side union representatives, our firm

represents several national unions. I have always voted for Democrats, but to have this Super Delagate system is wrong and I imagine that most Hillary supporters would be screaming if the shoe was on the other foot.

I just ask Hillary supporters to be honest with themselves on this issue. You ask Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary if she wins the Primary because we must support the Party. If the Party is putting their thumb on the scale for one candidate, using something as undemocratic as the Super Delagate system, why should we support this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #52)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:30 PM

60. Umm, the shoe was on the other foot. In 2008.

For all the talk of "democracy" here do you even realize that Hillary actually won the popular vote in 2008?
17,857,501 (48.04%) for Hillary,
17,584,692 (47.31%) for Obama.

Had it not been for the superdelegates of 2008, it would have ended in a brokered convention. Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates, and Hillary had a slight lead in popular vote. It was the endorsements from all of the other candidates that dropped out, combined with the overwhelming support of superdelegates that put President Obama on the ticket by 562 superdelegates for President Obama to 211 for Hillary Clinton.

Now, just because the opposing candidate doesn't like the rules of the party he joined in the 11th hour to run on their ticket, we're supposed to change the rules to accommodate? To hell with that.

The Party did put their thumb on the scale, and has ever since the rules changed in the 60's. There were some here who supported Hillary who were outraged (much like Sanders peop's are now) about the system. I, for one, wasn't one of those people.. that's the way the Democratic Party system works. Overall it is a good system.

For someone with the experience you list this should not be news to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:23 PM

109. You're one smart cookie, Amimnoch. And I LOL'd at your sig line. Gonna have to steal that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:25 PM

111. Super Delagates were not Democratic then or now, period.

Bernie has caucused with Democrats and supported our issues. I bet if he had chosen to run as an Independant you would be even more critical of him.

The 11th hour stuff is crap. The Party preferred he run as a Democrat and allowed him to, it's not a valid reason to treat his candidacy as a red headed step child! What happened to fairness? That is the cornerstone of what the Democrats are supposed to be about. Now the Party is behaving no better than the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:44 PM

167. Obama went into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates.

And FYI, most caucus states tend to report the number of county convention level delegates that each candidate earns from the caucus "vote," not the actual vote count used to do the math to allocate those delegates. So crying "popular vote" instead of using the pledged delegate count disregards caucus states, but that's perfectly fine with Hillary supporters because Hillary doesn't do very well in caucuses.

2008 did not see a 1968 style post-convention meltdown because even if Hillary would have taken it to a floor fight (she didn't), the superdelegates essentially ratified the pledged delegate result.

The possibilities, even indications, are that this year will be very different.

If Bernie manages to catch up to and pass Hillary in pledged delegates (mathematically unlikely but still possible), and we see this kind of behavior from supers giving the nomination to Hillary anyway, there will be hell to pay in the General. The supers can say "that's the rules!" all they want, but using legalistic semantics will do nothing to increase turnout for Democrats in the general. It can only hurt and lead to a 40+ state victory for the party that campaigns on "We didn't steal our party's nomination, because we're more democratic than the Democrats!"

^^ Yes, I can see the from here. But mark my words, if Bernie should enter Philadelphia having won a majority of pledged delegates and the supers, expressing the same kinds of sentiments reported in the OP give it to Hillary, the GOP will win by margins not seen since Raygun. Outside of the DU bubble, the "Democrats rigged their nomination" line will be a very potent attack against us in the general, whether we like it or not. Especially because the DNC and its apparatus have already shown so much favoritism in this primary, above and beyond the usual endorsements.

The superdelegates would be foolish to not consider that very, very carefully.

TBF, after Bernie's recent blowouts there has been some speculation about Bernie's camp trying to use supers to flip a pledged delegate majority for Hillary. If that happens, I expect the general to bear out much the same result. For that reason, I'm waiting until the June 7th results are in before (respectfully I might add) writing my supers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #167)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:54 PM

216. Do try to read first. I clearly stated that he did.

Hence the words "Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates" in my post. Which he did.

The final popular vote count does include caucus numbers. Just had a Caucus in Washington, the voter count is listed, and added to the total turnout numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

You can even look the numbers up by state. For example Washington 2008 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_caucuses,_2008

So.. you are wrong about the popular vote. Hillary did win the popular, even if it was by a small amount.

You are right about this year being different. There isn't a swarm of other candidates running to drop out and endorse Bernie. The overwhelming majority of Democrats who have done all of the heavy lifting for the party, many for decades, are throwing in behind Hillary.

If there is "hell to pay" in the General because of poutrage that one candidate couldn't gain the support needed to win over the other.. Well then everyone who does decide to do that deserves the president they get, and the judicial appointments they get, and the laws that come from it. I will not be held hostage by others threatening to take their toys and go home.

Your side might want to also start tempering that shitty rhetoric. If Bernie does come up from behind and pull this upset off, you're going to need us as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #216)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:36 PM

223. Your link does not give the 2016 popular vote for caucuses as described.

It adds the words "or equivalent" to popular vote. In the case of my state (WA caucus), the number that you are trying to claim is the popular vote, is actually the number of delegates to county/legislative district conventions that were elected!

Popular vote to county delegate conversion is NOT a 1:1 equivalent of popular vote! It cannot simply be added to the popular vote of primary-holding states as if it was the same thing, because it is not. If, on average, a precinct with 8 delegates to allocate has 100 caucusgoers show up to "vote," that precinct will report 8 "votes," not 100, which leads to each caucusgoer only being "worth" 8/100 of a voter or .08 vote when the caucus results are added to the popular vote!

The actual "popular vote" of the WA caucus is not reported. I have not been able to find the raw vote count used to arrive at the local convention delegate totals anywhere. I am not sure whether or not all states that had caucuses in 2008 reported the actual raw popular vote, but I know DAMN sure they're not bothering to report popular vote in 2016.

That is why I focused on pledged delegates, not popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:21 PM

57. Bingo.

I'm so tired of the conceit of the Sanders supporters that imagines that anything that works against their Democrat-by-convenience candidate needs to be changed in their favor. Sanders is being roundly rejected by the majority of voters who are voting in the D primaries. He ought to face up to the fact that he's not going to be the nominee and do something constructive for the D Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:52 PM

41. The UNdemocratic Party. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muktiman (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:05 PM

50. The party

certainly has changed since my younger activist days. I hardly recognize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:53 PM

42. Logic?

 

I'm confused by the logic behind many of the arguments being made about superdelegates. What I hear is:

If their state voted for Bernie, they should honor the will of the people. If their state voted for Hillary, they should still vote for Bernie, because he's better.

At the end of the primaries, they absolutely cannot overturn the national results, unless Hillary wins, because Bernie is better.

---

It's one thing to dislike the system, which is far from ideal, but it's another to be in conflict within your own beliefs. It shouldn't be asking too much to require a bit of consistency to our thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:03 PM

48. welcome and well said.

 

Would be nice if some of the conspiracists actually knew what the role and purpose of Super Delegates was, before spouting ultimatums and threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:03 PM

49. Interesting post.

Welcome to DU, first of all. I am always glad to see more of us being politically active, especially when it involves posting on a political website (where many of our younglings are getting their information).

That being said, I don't hear those messages you allege to hear. Instead, I hear "Bernie should pull out of the race and support Hillary." I'm glad he's in it to win it.

Also, I had to log out to see some of the responses to my OP, because I have many of the Hi11ary group on my IL (you might look up IL if you're new to DU). This makes it much more pleasant to participate in DU.

(P. S. I think you might belong on my IL, so I'll bid you a diplomatic farewell.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:14 PM

53. It's a self-defeating argument if the rules also apply to Hillary.

She's won more states with more Superdelegates and she's up in the polls in the next biggest super-delegate rich states. She could end Apr. having won states with a total of over half the superdelegates and if they become a "winner-take-all" by state thing, her delegate lead would balloon.

I've also yet to see someone who wasn't a Hillary Supporter complained that Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson haven't endorsed her or switched(declared) their votes for her. She did win their states after all.

The Sanders campaign isn't arguing this for a reason. They know that it has the potential to backfire ridiculously and I wish his supporters would respect that. Make this argument after PA or CA or when the campaign does it, because it is too early in the primary calendar to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:28 PM

112. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:18 PM

54. Good for Metcalfe putting this jerk in his place.

Glad she didn't budge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #54)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:44 PM

84. Jerk? Really? That's how you want to frame that voter? As a Jerk?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #84)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:39 PM

89. Yep. He's a jerk. Doesn't understand that political parties are private organizations

that the SCOTUS has ruled have wide discretion on how they want to run their nominating process.

There's nothing wrong with the Ds using super delegates however they want to use them. No one is electing a person to public office. They are selecting a person to run as a candidate to public office. As such, the idea of one-person, one-vote has no more agency in such a process than would be allowing baseball fans to tell the manager which players he will play.

To imagine that super delegates are there to represent the majority vote in their state simply betrays an appalling lack of knowledge about Party operations and why the super delegates were created by Bernie's campaign guru Tad Devine in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:56 PM

162. You're so right..

 





Thanks for the reminder.

I do suggest you might want to refrain from calling 99% of the American Citizens "jerks" for not knowing that's a big private club, and we ain't in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #162)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:23 PM

171. Why should I refrain from repeating what the SCOTUS has determined?

Are your sensitive feelings hurt? Not being coddled enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #171)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:30 PM

173. LOL!

 

My feelings hurt?!

Not even an eensy weensy bit.

The only reason why I suggested you refrain from calling 99.9% of Americans jerks should be obvious. But if it needs explaining, ask the jerk the next time you look in the mirror. Maybe you'll have your answer if you look real close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:58 PM

168. And the last thing Democrats need in the GE is Rs calling us out for rigging our nomination.

"We got rid of rigged conventions a half century ago!" (Especially if Trump wins an outright majority and our supers rig it, oh that would be a horror show.)

Worse, the conduct of the DNC over the course of the entire primary has been anything but impartial (and I'm not talking about endorsements) and will only feed such perceptions further.

Outside of the DU bubble, that attack will doom our nominee, no matter if it is Hillary or Bernie, if the supers override the pledged delegate majority.

I fear the supers, in their arrogance, will not give adequate consideration to the general-election consequences of overriding the primary results. And I reiterate (as a Bernie supporter) that such foolish behavior could go either way, although I expect Hillary to be the short-term beneficiary of such foolishness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:30 PM

172. Hillary has a YUGE lead in pledged delegates that Bernie will not

be able to close under even the rosiest scenario.

The only people advocating that the super delegates override the pledged delegate count are Tad Devine and the Sanders campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #172)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:44 PM

176. Ahem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511576753

And that only uses data up until March 25th. I can tell you that the 26th SURPASSED "the rosiest scenario" predicted by the #feelthemath crowd the day before.

Keep Coasting, Camp Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:39 PM

65. How dare this pipsqueak challenge the well-established dictum of

"1 person casts 1 vote, but 1 super-person reverses thousands of votes"!

What a jerk! How naive!!

Or so I read on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:54 PM

70. No matter whose Super Delegate...

The super-delegate system is horrendous.

By its own design it was made to thwart the will of the people. That alone is reason enough to ditch it. Maybe a system is needed to avoid the Trump scenario -- but this should not be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:11 PM

74. Superdelegates have the right to vote for who they want

News flash: Political parties can make up any rules they want, select any nominee they want, because they are NOT part of the government. They are public organizations uniting around a political agenda and organized to promote their agenda; they are not governed by our rules of democracy.

Once you get over the expectation that parties should bow to the will of the people -- which is what the general election is about -- you can better maneuver party politics. Don't let indignation over false transgressions cloud your vision.

The good news is that the process is more transparent than in the past when party leaders went into a smoke-filled room, discussed what was best for the party as they saw it, then came up with a nominee. At least now the more general members have some say in the process.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boomer (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:46 PM

92. You don't think it's all

Kabuki Theater?

You know, I have a hard time believing that our vote is uncompromised, given the electronic voting machines, the long lines at precincts, the voter suppression, etc.

What struck me the most about this article is the willfulness of some Hi11ary supporters -- a tenacious clinging to her as the "presumptive nominee," despite her many, glaring issues. I think such individuals are out of touch with our current reality, wherein radical income inequity threatens the well-being of BILLIONS of humans on this planet.

That's what we have to change, Boomer. That, and our soon to be unlivable climate. And, I refuse to go quietly into that dark night. I WILL continue to advocate--for Bernie in the White House, and for the future of our younglings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boomer (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:03 PM

169. Any superdelegate who does not recognize the electoral consequences

of overriding the pledged delegate vote is a very, very foolish superdelegate indeed.

Regardless of what we in the DU bubble think, "The Democratic party rigged their nomination!" repeated ad naseum guarantees we will lose the general by margins not seen since Raygun.

(Which some superdelegates would probably want if Bernie catches up and passes Hillary in the pledged delegate count.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #169)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:01 PM

179. You are so right.

If she doesn't understand how people will respond to her, she isn't fit to be a super-delegate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:20 PM

75. The super delegate is right

This kind of behavior by Bernie's supporters is only going to backfire and cause the Hillary SDs to hunker down and dig in their heels even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dcbuckeye (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:48 PM

93. Good luck with that.

That's such a stellar reason to support a candidate...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:21 PM

76. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:38 PM

83. Ms, Metcalf had no obligation as a Super Delegate to support Bernie Sanders.

SUPERDELEGATE
su·per·del·e·gate
ˈso͞opərˌdeləɡət/
nounUS
plural noun: super-delegates
(in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention.

Kim Metcalfe is not an elected official.

The Role of Superdelegates in the Democratic Race

April 4, 2008 6:00 AM ET

It's widely viewed that the Democratic presidential nominee may be decided by the party's superdelegates.

Steve Inskeep talks to Democratic strategist Tad Devine about the origins of superdelegates. They also discuss how a protracted Democratic presidential nomination contest could affect the party's chances in the general election.

Superdelegates Primer: What You Need to Know

What's a superdelegate?

As much of America must know by now, superdelegates are those Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are automatically delegates to the national convention. In order to win the Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate must win not only the pledged delegates who are apportioned according to the results of the primaries or caucuses, but enough of the superdelegates, who can choose to endorse whichever candidate they wish, regardless of the results of primaries in their state or district.

Who gets to be a superdelegate?

Every Democratic member of the House and Senate, every Democratic governor and members of the Democratic National Committee (such as state party chairs, vice chairs and national committeemen and women) automatically get to be superdelegates. Also included: former Democratic presidents and vice presidents, former Democratic House and Senate leaders, and ex-DNC chairs.

How do superdelegates decide which candidate to support?

Though they aren't bound by the results of primaries or caucuses, superdelegates will often throw their support to whomever they think will make the stronger presidential nominee in the general election. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar says that's one of the reasons why she decided to endorse Obama on Monday.

Sometimes, pressure back home makes a difference. Georgia Rep. John Lewis, an influential member of Congress, initially endorsed Clinton last year. But his district went overwhelmingly for Obama in the February primary, so Lewis made the unusual decision to switch his support to the Illinois senator.

More at link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89369899

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:56 PM

86. She would be supporting Hillary Clinton, due to her “negative” conversations with Sanders supporters

Has there ever been a group more thin-skinned than Mrs. Clinton's most ardent supporters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #86)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:41 PM

90. They follow their leader -

They've had enough of his "tone". Of course if they can't handle the bird whisperer it ought to be pretty amusing watching them deal with Trump in the fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #90)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:32 PM

114. I sincerely hope

it doesn't come to that. Bernie is--by far--the best candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

Go, BERNIE!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #86)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:49 PM

94. Thin-skinned,

self-righteous, arrogant, condescending... I've experienced all this and more with some of her supporters.

Go BERNIE!!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:14 PM

87. There ya go

Keep telling the superdelegate that they have to vote the way you want them to instead of how they want to as is their right. Tell them they are stealing it for Clinton, then when you don't get your way start talking riots, that'll bring them superdelegates to us. Stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:53 PM

95. You didn't read this article, did you?

Levi Younger ASKED her to vote with the majority of her state: 81.6% of the voters. I think that's a reasonable request.

(Please stop implying that fellow DUers are stupid.)

Go BERNIE!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #95)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:21 PM

108. 10,000 Alaskans voted in the D caucus.

The population of Alaska in about 740,000. If half those people are Ds, you're talking 10,000 out of 370,000 who voted in the caucuses. That's 2% of Alaskan Dems deciding the D caucus winner. Of that 2%, 80% supported Bernie.

One could ask if it's fair for 1.6% of the Ds to speak for 100% of the Ds in the state. If you're going to say that a super delegate must be bound by the preference expressed by 1.6% of the Ds in Alaska, then you also need to address how unfair caucuses are in general.

If your answer is, "well, a caucus is the format they've decided to use in Alaska," then you have to be OK with the super delegates being used the way the DNC designed them to be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #95)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:29 PM

153. Yes I read the article.

"youre stealing this for hillary" That is not asking at all, that is being stupid as well as telling the super delegate that she does not get to vote the way she wants to. I said straight out that the person asking them to switch was stupid, I did not imply anyone on DU. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:17 PM

107. Bernie could have joined the party years ago and had more support

from the party; but he chose a different path and so the party faithfuls are more faithful to the party than someone who joined just to use their coattails. I'm not saying this is right, but I think that is what it is about. Obama used super delegates to his advantage as he was a party member from the beginning of his career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #107)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:31 PM

113. I've only recently begun hearing

this strange assertion, that Senator Sanders "could have joined the party years ago." This is a straw man argument, and a poor one.

I suspect that, like their beleaguered candidate, many Hi11ary supporters are in react mode, a very tenuous place to be. I think you would all feel much better supporting a candidate who has integrity.

Go BERNIE!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #113)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:35 PM

115. I support our nominee

I'm a democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #115)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 04:42 PM

116. We don't HAVE a nominee...

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:25 PM

129. "Leaked?" Please. She spoke "cavalierly."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #129)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:27 PM

133. Please note that

I posted the article with the exact headline provided in the original.

Plus, I think Metcalfe was condescending, and defensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #133)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:40 PM

140. ? I did not say you changed the headline. I simply commented on the OP article by

replying to the Opening Post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #140)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:42 PM

141. It seems you responded to me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #141)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:46 PM

143. Please read my post 140 again. Thanks.

You've been here 12 years, longer than I have. So, maybe you can explain how I can possibly comment on the article that comprises the Opening Post except by replying to the Opening Post. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #143)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:48 PM

144. I have no idea what you mean.

AND, I don't understand your comment at all. Perhaps you could explain more clearly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #144)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:49 PM

145. No. Both posts could not be more clear.

The only thing that is unclear is why you took a reply to an OP as accusing you of something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #145)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:52 PM

147. I think it's clear

that we have two different understandings of "OP." For me, it means "original poster." Thus, your comment sounds like a snark.

Apparently, it means something completely different to you.

I am only guessing, since you're unwilling to help me understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #147)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:00 PM

148. "Commented on the OP article" as in Reply 140, in the only

way one can-by replying to the Opening post (or Opening Poster) means I accused the the Opening Poster of changing the headline?

So does "Maybe you can explain how I can possibly comment on the article that comprises the Opening Post except by replying to the Opening Post."

Both those explanations were unclear and signified an unwillingness on my part to explain my original to you?

As already stated, I don't know how I could have made the meaning of my original reply any clearer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #148)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:07 PM

150. merrily, please stop.

You are the only one who's beating the "accused" drum here. Also, I have explained I didn't (and don't) understand. Your response to my explanation is to defend your posts? Wow.

Just FYI, my initial response was not an accusation. It was a clarification.


It's okay. You can be right. Let it go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #150)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:08 PM

151. Thanks. I love unintentional irony.

Also love it when people keep posting to me, but I'm the one who's wrong or posting excessively because I reply.


merrily (39,441 posts)
129. "Leaked?" Please. She spoke "cavalierly."


chervilant (7,904 posts)
133. Please note that I posted the article with the exact headline provided in the original. Plus, I think Metcalfe was condescending, and defensive.



Sure seemed as though you thought I'd accused you of something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:25 PM

130. Problem --only a small % of eligable voters actually voted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #130)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:25 PM

152. Super delegates need to be eliminated from this convention.

 

Their existing role undermines our democracy, one person one vote.

I love it when Levi informed the super delegate, "Your personal preferences for president are represented in your vote as a citizen. Not as a representative of your state."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #130)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:43 PM

175. Problem for you is that this is the case in virtually every election in America. Low turn out among

 

those registered, low registration among those eligible. Second problem is that if few were motivated to vote and 80% of those voted for one candidate, the 20% candidate is the one who really failed to bring them out. Obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:56 PM

158. This is the way some older people talk to millenials

It really is impersonal, haughty and disrespectful.

Good on Levi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Depaysement (Reply #158)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:26 PM

164. I agree.

She was condescending. Totally unnecessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:05 PM

160. The Corruption, Theft, and Mendacity Is Becoming Crystal-Clear To MANY In This Primary...

 

Does one support this, or not? THAT is the question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #160)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 09:27 PM

165. It is, indeed.

One has to wonder how people who lie, cheat and steal live with themselves. Wonder still more when such individuals represent themselves as "Christian."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #160)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:01 AM

184. MORE REGISTRATION CORRUPTION IN PA

This is UNBELIEVABLE! After reading an article at Anonymous on the antics in Arizona, I noticed a comment attached to the article that stated there are widespread reports of voter registration manipulation in PA and NY.

See article: Anonymous Investigate Arizona Election Fraud, “Sanders Was Hacked”
Link: http://www.anonews.co/anonymous-sanders-hack/

Since I live in PA and am a Bernie supporter, I decided to confirm my registration immediately.

I checked the VotesPA website and, sure enough, voter registration information on both my husband and me is not available!!! We have been registered Democrats and voting at this location since 1987 and 1994 respectively.

This is the message that came up for both of us: "No Voter Registration information could be found for the data provided. Either search again using different data or contact your County Voter Registration Office."

Calling tomorrow and surprise (not), we are Bernie supporters!!! INCREDIBLE!!! Just coincidence in state after state???? I think not!!!

Seems like those two lapses in the firewall (both reported by the Sanders Campaign) are benefitting only one of our two Democratic candidates...

HIGHEST PRIORITY!!! PLEASE TELL EVERYONE WHO IS STILL WAITING TO VOTE IN PRIMARIES TO CHECK THEIR REGISTRATION...ESPECIALLY FRIENDS IN NY AND PA!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kadaholo (Reply #184)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:03 AM

186. You may want to post this info as an OP...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #186)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:14 AM

188. Thanks! Most Helpful!

Thanks, AzDar! Most Helpful! Just posted as new thread in primary discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kadaholo (Reply #184)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:32 AM

201. Thank you for posting about

this egregious voter registration manipulation. I have to wonder exactly whose account was hacked, and by whom, at the DNC. Shady goings on, for sure.

Hopefully, messages like yours will help inform Bernie's supporters, who seem to be the only ones facing this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:18 PM

170. Everyone I Know Is Facebook Messaging Her

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billhicks76 (Reply #170)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:03 PM

180. That's where I found the article.

And, I have seen lots of posts about her, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #180)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:36 PM

181. Facebooking Jay Inslee In WA Too

 

Just post on his page for review as he has no message inbox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:48 PM

177. The Revolution's enemy hit list grows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:32 AM

182. she obviously didn't like his "tone".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #182)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:25 AM

199. Perhaps.

IMHO, she missed an opportunity to speak diplomatically with a youngling activist. I have friends who support Hi11ary, and we have discussions all the time without being snarky or condescending. (It would be nice to have those types of convos here...)

Go, Bernie!!!

#NotMeUs

(One of my Hi11ary friends LOVES Bernie!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #199)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:21 AM

209. Sanders is our last best chance. Rising seas and corporations with unlimited power will kill us all

And you're worried about being snarky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #209)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:35 AM

210. No need to be ugly to others.

Verbal abuse is unnecessary. One can convey a thought or a position without being "snarky."

(Concern about climate or politics does not preclude diplomacy...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #210)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:04 PM

211. It's my and your children's lives, friend.

10 feet of ocean rise by 2050. Unending wars, profits for corporations, death for everyone else.
The Jews were very polite, I hear, as they walked into the gas chambers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ish of the hammer (Reply #211)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:42 PM

217. Interestingly,

I am the only one of six sisters who chose to remain childless. Mine was a deliberate decision, reached after I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." I was a prepubescent (9-11 YO) geek child.

I have never regretted my decision. In my 60 years on this planet, I have witnessed:

-- heavy metal pollution of the majority of our groundwater.

--depleted uranium.

--erosion and degradation of our topsoil, with a resulting decrease in nutrients in our fruits and vegetables.

--radical income inequity.

--relentless adherence to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

--overfishing and pollution of all the bodies of water on the planet.

--acidification of the oceans, and bleaching of most coral reefs.

--destruction of the rain forests.

--accelerated extinctions of multiple species of plants, insects and animals.

--ginormous swaths of floating plastic debris in all of the earth's oceans.

--oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Alaska, and in numerous other pristine environments.

--an increasing number of highly toxic superfund sites.

--Chernobyl.

--Fukushima.

--multiple nuclear "accidents" across the globe.

--the "calving" of huge pieces of ice (in one instance, bigger than the island of Manhattan) as glaciers disintegrate.

--catastrophic climate change, with freaky, ginormous storms.

I find it interesting that you think my advocacy for diplomacy equates with an ignorance of what our species is facing over the next decade. You might want to do a bit of research on my past observations herein.

In 2012, I watched a video of a climate symposium from 2008, wherein a prominent climate scientist explained that unstoppable positive feedback loops were already accelerating climate change. Unstoppable... Already.

It's going to be far worse than people know, and hardly anyone is paying attention, so I understand your concern. However, I don't understand, nor do I appreciate, your intimation that I am misguided in wanting people to have each others' backs. Our species is facing a daunting future, and I hope enough of us are committed to helping our younglings, on the off chance that this is not our species' extinction event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #217)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:37 PM

218. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Clearly

You see the existential problem facing all of us. Not our own deaths, but rather the death of the human species and possibly life itself on this mud ball. If we expect to survive over the next couple of generations, politeness and lack thereof will be the least of our problems. But I Agee that, as my wife says, kindness above all. Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:49 AM

193. Good Grief, Is there no end to this insanity?

Far be it for me to add reality in the mix for Bernie supporters, but this is the most ridiculous nonsense ever put forward as a controversy. It was bad enough when the Berners thought that the superdelegates were out to steal the election for Clinton after Bernie won New Hampshire (Even though the Superdelegates' votes or intentions won't even count before the convention). But now they have just really gone off the deep end. This episode between Levi Younger and Kim Metcalfe is just the pinnacle of hysteria and desperation on the Berners' part. (FYI, I think Ms. Metcalfe was supremely patient and forthright with Mr. Younger. Indeed, as she predicted, his tone changed to aggressive as he realized she would not allow herself to be bullied.)

Let's start with some stubborn facts, shall we? Bernie Sanders supporters have initiated a concerted effort to sway the votes of the Democratic superdelegates in regards to the nomination for president. The name of their group is entitled the Superdelegate Task Force Army. It consists of passionate partisans angling to get superdelegates in states won overwhelmingly by Bernie Sanders to declare or flip their votes from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Their clarion call is that the superdelegates should allow democracy to reign by pressuring the officials to follow the will of their states in regards to overwhelmingly voting for Sanders. Their position is highly disingenuous on the merits, and is cynically self-serving in its implementation. But why you ask? Well, never mentioned in their passionate demands to follow the will of the people who voted in large numbers for their candidate is the obverse calls to superdelegates supporting Sanders from those states that overwhelmingly voted for Clinton to now fall in line for her. Apparently, reciprocity is in short supply, but hypocrisy is abundant with this group. It should also be noted that the amount of chutzpah that these activist have in trying to dictate to superdelegates how they should vote is off-the-charts. This system has been set up for decades, and despite what sour-grapes Berners may say at this crucial point in time, it is not a corrupt system and should not be remade immediately so that their candidate can have a better shot at the nomination. (Perhaps if he started dominating the voting from this point onwards?) Remember that these people,the non-officeholders, became superdelegates because they were in the trenches and worked hard to establish the Democratic party into the modern organization that it is today. They have earned their autonomy and freedom to cast their nomination votes as they see fit. Berners, a very recent phenomenon, should have a seat and a muzzle before telling any superdelegate how he/she should vote before the convention. Their incredible ignorance and desperation is astounding to behold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernersFaceFacts (Reply #193)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:28 AM

200. Wow.

I encourage you to use paragraphs to increase the likelihood that more DUers will wade through your verbiage.

(Welcome to DU, and to my IL.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #200)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:35 PM

215. Forget the verbiage, address the substance!

Sure thing, I'll be certain to use paragraphs going forward. However, punctuation and format aside, nothing written in my original post is inaccurate. And yes, if DU members are open to contrary and lively discussions, they most certainly will "wade through" the verbiage to comprehend the gist of my post. BTW, thanks for the warm welcome! Ciao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:15 AM

205. Just FYI, all the Hi11ary supporters

whose responses I cannot see:


Ma☭le Cocaine ‎‎@historyinflicks


@charles_kinbote @HillaryClinton "Bernie is perfect." - Hillary Clinton

11:54 AM - 30 Mar 2016



97 97 Retweets

350 350 likes



This is one of myriad twitter responses to Hi11ary's adjuration that voters shouldn't have to wait for "the perfect."

It is to laugh.

Go, BERNIE!!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:21 AM

206. I get it, that Sanders supporters want...

... super delegates to switch to Sanders, but was there anything wrong with the conversation itself? It just sounds like two people disagreeing in a more or less civil manner. What was the point of your subject line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAS14 (Reply #206)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:03 AM

208. When you post in Good Reads,

you are required to use the exact headline of the article you link. That is what I did.

Also, I have noticed that Hi11ary's supporters are using "Fighting for Us" posters, whereas Bernie's supporters are using "A Future to Believe In" posters. hmm... I think Bernie's posters are far more positive and hopeful. I'm tired of "fighting" for anything. We HAVE to have each others' backs, and Bernie is the incredible human being who can--and should--lead our peaceful, grassroots revolution.

Time for change. Time for Bernie.

Go BERNIE!!!

#NotMeUs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:53 PM

226. Aren't there laws about recording conversations without consent?

Do Sanders supporters have any integrity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Original post)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:55 AM

238. Wow. Add this to the evidence file. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread