The people attempting to mollify late-state voters by assuring us 'we still get to vote' are correct

[whatchamacallit]

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course the important part is whether our votes actually have influence in the primary or are just a symbolic privilege. The only way we are really voting is if our votes count. This is why we MUST keep Bernie in this all the way. Our dedication to helping him see it through is what decides if our voices are heard.

[RobertEarl]

1. What KOS has stated

You late voters will be ignored on our website, for we have decided the winner. Not only ignored but deleted.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Yeah I get that about these websites and it blows

but I'm addressing our efficacy outside of cyberspace.

[RobertEarl]

9. It is a symptom

Of the mindset which is trying to indoctrinate us into believing it's all over.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Yeah, so dispiriting

Too bad people feel the need to play it that way.

[nolabels]

22. I think its a real good feeling to know you were correct all along even when people try dismiss you

I think all of Bernie fans got a good shot, the majority of people are tired of being sold a false bill of goods. Offering truth in advertising is rare commodity. How many times should you give somebody your business after being burned by them anyway? I think we all going to start to feel the Bern

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. I live in California and will vote, but my choice will either be a protest or a coronation.

I support Clinton. With the current primary system, she is likely to have won enough delegates (I am not talking about Super delegates), to win it out right well before Jun 7. The Democratic primaries use of proportional awards of delegates makes it very difficult to catch up. At some point, certainly before the end of April, we will be at a point where Sanders could win every primary and never catch up.

In 2008, Clinton reached that point before California and was available on the ballot though she had withdrawn.

History shows, that if Sanders turns it around, the super delegates will change to support him.

Actually, he is probably already on the ballot in every state. If you live in California after he withdraws, you could still vote for him, so if he suspends his campaign you will likely still get to vote for him.

[whatchamacallit]

5. I don't subscribe to assumptions and projections

when Hillary actually has the pledged delegates to win I'll be satisfied with the process, not before.

[jeff47]

7. In 2008, the California primary was on Super Tuesday

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday,_2008

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Wow, that was not how I remembered it. I'm getting old.

[MineralMan]

4. It's a problem with a spread-out primary system.

It often happens that a nominee already has enough delegates to ensure nomination before the later primaries take place. It's not just something that started this year. It's endemic in the system we use. Until we change that to prevent an early knowledge of the delegate count, it will keep happening.

And those decisions are made by the national party organization, for the most part. Once again, most of us won't have any input at that level.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Yeah? Well if the parties want people to feel they have a reason to keep showing up

they better do something about it.

[MineralMan]

11. They? WE are the party.

If you want change, take part in it. Be part of it. Otherwise, no change will occur. The party is not them. It is us.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Do you just say anything? Compare your last two posts

#1. "And those decisions are made by the national party organization, for the most part. Once again, most of us won't have any input at that level."

#2 " They? WE are the party. The party is not them. It is us."

[whatchamacallit]

14. You beat me to it

Amazing huh?

[Bluenorthwest]

15. It was stunning to read, it's usually at least an hour between fully contradictory posts and that

was just back to back.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Heh yup

[whatchamacallit]

13. Just so you understand why I have a hard time taking you seriously

let's compare your last two messages to me

"And those decisions are made by the national party organization, for the most part. Once again, most of us won't have any input at that level."

Followed by

"If you want change, take part in it. Be part of it. Otherwise, no change will occur. The party is not them. It is us."

[MineralMan]

17. The path to the National party organization starts

in your precinct. Unless you are involved, there is no path. If you want change, you must be part of the group that can make change. It's very simple.

[whatchamacallit]

18. ...

[MineralMan]

19. Yup.

Want to change the party? Join the party and become part of its leadership. That's how it's done. Nothing else can possibly work.

If you choose not to participate, your voice will remain silent. It's up to you. Or put another way: You snooze; you lose.

Your smilies tell the story very clearly.

(And yes, that is a lecture.)

[whatchamacallit]

20. Spare me the insipid Hallmark Inspirations bullshit

First it's "sorry, those decisions are made at the top, most of us won't have any influence at that level"..., then it's "quit yer whining, ensconce yourself in party politics and be the change!".

Is it your sagely advise that anyone/everyone who has a problem with the system drop what they're doing, and work their way up to Party Chairperson or stfu?

[MineralMan]

21. Thanks for the advice. In truth, though,

nothing I write on DU is really directed your way. I sometimes reply to something you post, but I'm posting for others to read, really.

You do have a way with words, though. "insipid Hallmark Inspirations bullshit" is very concise and pointed. Lots of meaning in just a few words. Bravo!