After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
According to the article, this is due to the DNC's superdelegate system. Six out of New Hampshire's eight superdelegates have pledged to Hillary. The other two are uncommitted as of now.
Disclaimer: A friend of mine mentioned this odd result to me earlier today. I found it hard to believe, so I did some quick research. The best explanation of it that I could find was at the site linked below. However, that site seems to be rather right-of-center.
I decided to post this anyway as a warning.
If the site is in error, please let me know and I'll delete this.
... cause Obama played long ball with delegates.
Hillary lost NH with the same number she won with in 08 too, now there's no one to split the "hate hillary" vote...
We'll see, the SEC states is a tell tale.
The Superdelegates always vote the way of the people. They throw their vote to the candidate who won.
No chance, they'd subvert the will of the people.
This conversation happened about the same time in 2008. Clinton kept trying to insist that she was winning, when she wasn't--because of the Superdelegates.
Ridiculous in 2008. Ridiculous now.
... we need the back and forth.
another quirk gave Bernie a strong majority vote: and that is the fact that is is an open primary with same day registration.
I don't have a problem with that. My point is that both are particular "quirks" of the NH primary (and some other states) that influence the outcome.
Superdelegates are not written in stone, though. They only really come into play if there is a tie in the end.
In the same way that a Clinton loss by more than 20% and still gets more delegates? See to me that is just more of a rigged system.
My point is that NH is an OPEN primary, with SAME DAY registration, which means that it's much easier for people with less strong party ties to vote. Since Bernie is strong among independents, such a scenario favors him.
I don't have a problem with that. It's simply that there are quirks in every primary. And those quirks influence outcomes.
I did not describe registration as a quirk. I don't wish to offend you, but you did not in fact comprehend what I said, if that is what you get from it.
Then start your post with "reading comprehension is a good thing", followed by additional reading comprehension remarks, then continue to state that same day registration is a quirk like Hillary losing by more than 20% but gets more delegates is a quirk. I do comprehend what you are saying, I just believe it is bullshit much like your " I don't mean to offend you" is also bullshit.
Can you comprehend that?
I should not have started with the reading comprehension thing, but it seemed to me that you were deliberately distorting my words, so I got annoyed. I don't see why so many Bernie supporters feel the need to aggressively attack even the most neutral remark.
And no, REGISTRATION is not a quirk and your efforts to make me sound like someone who would want to deny voters rights, are duly noted and rejected. My point is simply that the entire process is quirky. It's not a simple majority vote. Unrepresentative states get a head start; some states have caucuses; some states have open primaries where anyone can register to vote wherever they want, while other states have closed primaries where party loyalists tend to have the upper hand; and there are super delegates. All quirks on the system.
Feel the need to aggressively attack...."
Really, I think we're done here.
This is not the first time where I would say something pretty neutral, and yet have someone twist or attack it for no good reason. It's getting tiresome.
I said we are done with this faux conversation. Comprehend yet?
Republicans can not vote in the Democratic primary, and vice versa. Independents can choose a GOP ballot or a Democratic ballot. Basically, it's a closed primary that permits independents to participate.
as 2008 proved superdelegates can change before convention.
in my opinion and will support the argument for electing the perceived anti establishment candidate. Bernie's fighting the rigged system. The slanted table. Overcoming this is the stuff of legend and a place will be reserved on Mt. Rushmore for Bernie Sanders.
No matter who wins the election I hope the Democrats will end the superdelegate system.
It sends the message to those voters "Screw who most of you voted for, we're canceling that out with who we want".
It's as simple as that.
And, based on the number of delegates that came out of New Hampshire, she DID win.
New Hampshire has 24 pledged delegates based on the popular vote. Superdelegates are chosen from the VIP party members and bigtime elected officials. They aren't awarded through the primary vote, but by the Democratic Party. New Hampshire has 8 with 6 deciding to go with Clinton. In our two party system, there is no separate callout for Independents, but the Superdelegates are free to switch their votes.
If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
how would the superdelegates explain it?
the rioting in the streets would dwarf the Civil Rights movement.
The superdelegates vote at the convention. They make endorsements, which indicate how they would like to vote. However, they are mostly smart politicians that know how to take the pulse of the electorate.
This according to Dan Abrams in Huffpost 2008. They enabled BHO to override HRC in 2008.
Make politicians beholden to candidates, against popular support, questioning political legitimacy!
See, the DNC and the RNC aren't that dissimilar after all!
...and should be removed from the Democratic Party starting in four years.
Super delegates include FORMER DNC Chairs. They may be retired from every job, but they're royalty when it comes to picking the Democratic nominee. This nation was founded on a rejection of royalty.
I will leave the party. I'm done. I will absolutely under no circumstances support an oligarchy.
I believe the system is highly corrupt and morally bankrupt and this ploy of counting the super delegates now is meant to suppress turn out because what they are saying, in my opinion, is that our votes don't matter. We can crush and win in a landslide and the establishment will still anoint Hillary.
We must continue top get out the vote in record numbers and crush the establishment candidate. Then the super delegates will go with the will of the people or risk destroying the party.
Nothing gets through congress
It does not matter that much
I align withJill Stein
She is way to my right
Why would I care?
They are just politicians who have similar ideas to me
I would not care who got the superdelegates just like the endorsements dont jazz me up
Unless malcolmx's ghost is running, meh
Every time I tke that stupid test. My position is way to the left of the candidates. Never fails. Thats why I know nobody is ever going to be pushing the stuff I want. They are too far right. Even Bernie, he's to the right of stein really, and I'm to the left of her.
What incredible BS that Bernie could win the largest landslide in NH primary history, and yet still receive fewer delegates!
This has to be:
If Bernie wins the primary popular vote and Clinton gets the nomination, it will infuriate Bernie supporters and rip the party apart, handing the GE victory to the Republican.
Any ideas how we can bring this issue to the forefront?
Bernie needs to talk about this problem NOW rather than merely basking in a popular vote landslide which could be effectively meaningless because of the "Super Delegate" system.
Do you know how long the current system has been effect? You want "EXPOSED"? Google wiki and at least get some background information.
They don't mean jack crap until the convention and even then, if Bernie has swept the nation and has won the popular vote, WE THE PEOPLE, the Super Delegates will switch to Bernie.
If Bernie sweeps the nation like I think he will, Super Delegates can and DO, switch their endorsements BEFORE the convention.
IGNORE SUPER DELEGATES. Clinton did the same thing in 2008....she's not sitting in the Whute House.
can't pledge and are not counted until they vote. So this thinking uses very murky language. Their endorsements are in no way binding to them, the opposite in fact.