HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Rigged race means Hillary...

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:53 AM

Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win

April 9, 2016 | 4:44pm | Updated
Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win



Bernie Sanders won again Saturday — and still lost.


The Vermont senator took ­Wyoming by an impressive 12 percentage-point margin in statewide caucuses, beating Clinton 56-44 percent. But under the Democratic party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.

In fact, despite his win, he splits the Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.

Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite “losing,” she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally.

Of the 500 superdelegates who have announced whom they’re supporting, 469 say they’re for Clinton.

That makes Sanders’ win in the Cowboy State and in caucuses and primaries across the country little more than a morale boost — and maybe a cruel joke to his ­ardent young supporters.

Meanwhile, both candidates turned their attentions to New York’s April 19 primary, and its trove of 291 delegates.

In city appearances, Clinton shied away from a slice of Junior’s cheesecake and Brooklyn-born Sanders touted his borough bona fides.

“I hope that New York state will help lead this country into the political revolution,” the Vermont senator told a cheering crowd of 700 mostly Hispanic and black voters at the United Palace of Cultural Arts in Washington Heights.

The crowd booed when Sanders said that New York is “Secretary Clinton’s adopted home state.”

“That’s not a crime,” Sanders joked in response.

“So if we can win here, it opens the door to victory to the White House,” he said, saying that a high voter turnout on April 19, when New York’s 291 delegates will be allocated, could vault him past the front-runner. Current polling averages have Clinton in the lead in New York by 13 points.

........snip..........

http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-caucuses-in-wyoming/


It IS rigged, like our economy, like our financial industry, like our foreign policy, like our privatizing public services, like our monopolized industries killing entrepreneurship, like our unfair "free trade" deals, like our media. (Thus the crappy link.)

Its a "cruel joke" to more of US than just the young supporters.

159 replies, 10097 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 159 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win (Original post)
RiverLover Apr 2016 OP
stone space Apr 2016 #1
daleanime Apr 2016 #3
stone space Apr 2016 #11
daleanime Apr 2016 #77
stone space Apr 2016 #78
pangaia Apr 2016 #55
stone space Apr 2016 #56
pangaia Apr 2016 #58
stone space Apr 2016 #60
DrDan Apr 2016 #64
pangaia Apr 2016 #65
DrDan Apr 2016 #67
pangaia Apr 2016 #147
oberliner Apr 2016 #119
Pastiche423 Apr 2016 #121
oberliner Apr 2016 #130
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #139
oberliner Apr 2016 #148
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #149
oberliner Apr 2016 #150
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #151
oberliner Apr 2016 #158
Pastiche423 Apr 2016 #155
oberliner Apr 2016 #157
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #126
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #2
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #7
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #10
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #14
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #15
hellofromreddit Apr 2016 #120
PotatoChip Apr 2016 #142
RiverLover Apr 2016 #143
PotatoChip Apr 2016 #144
Maedhros Apr 2016 #153
RiverLover Apr 2016 #16
Henhouse Apr 2016 #9
Maedhros Apr 2016 #152
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #4
livetohike Apr 2016 #13
pangaia Apr 2016 #61
TheFarseer Apr 2016 #68
Buzz cook Apr 2016 #92
markpkessinger Apr 2016 #66
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #75
okasha Apr 2016 #86
Vinca Apr 2016 #5
RiverLover Apr 2016 #6
LuvLoogie Apr 2016 #17
Vinca Apr 2016 #39
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #43
Vinca Apr 2016 #49
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #51
LuvLoogie Apr 2016 #62
Vinca Apr 2016 #70
LuvLoogie Apr 2016 #93
WhiteTara Apr 2016 #108
mythology Apr 2016 #35
Vinca Apr 2016 #41
SharonClark Apr 2016 #113
Vinca Apr 2016 #123
Name removed Apr 2016 #8
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #89
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #12
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #18
chervilant Apr 2016 #28
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #32
mythology Apr 2016 #42
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #71
grossproffit Apr 2016 #31
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #33
TransitJohn Apr 2016 #36
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #40
mythology Apr 2016 #46
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #72
LonePirate Apr 2016 #80
TransitJohn Apr 2016 #84
pangaia Apr 2016 #57
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #74
pangaia Apr 2016 #81
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #83
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #90
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #91
bettyellen Apr 2016 #94
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #99
RealAmericanDem Apr 2016 #19
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #20
LineLineReply .
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #22
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #24
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #25
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #26
Bettie Apr 2016 #128
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #131
Bettie Apr 2016 #132
RiverLover Apr 2016 #134
Bettie Apr 2016 #135
RiverLover Apr 2016 #140
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #138
RiverLover Apr 2016 #141
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #136
Bettie Apr 2016 #137
Hoyt Apr 2016 #21
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #23
Tarc Apr 2016 #27
Else You Are Mad Apr 2016 #29
kiva Apr 2016 #103
Tarc Apr 2016 #109
kiva Apr 2016 #111
Tarc Apr 2016 #115
kiva Apr 2016 #117
Tarc Apr 2016 #125
kiva Apr 2016 #145
Tarc Apr 2016 #146
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #124
Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #30
saidsimplesimon Apr 2016 #34
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #37
Octafish Apr 2016 #45
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #47
Octafish Apr 2016 #52
bigtree Apr 2016 #38
RiverLover Apr 2016 #44
KingFlorez Apr 2016 #48
RiverLover Apr 2016 #54
Marr Apr 2016 #50
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #53
CBHagman Apr 2016 #59
DrDan Apr 2016 #63
SidDithers Apr 2016 #69
Beacool Apr 2016 #73
Blue Owl Apr 2016 #76
Octafish Apr 2016 #79
LisaM Apr 2016 #82
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #85
bettyellen Apr 2016 #95
RiverLover Apr 2016 #106
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #159
treestar Apr 2016 #129
Tarc Apr 2016 #87
oldandhappy Apr 2016 #88
seabeyond Apr 2016 #96
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #97
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #98
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #101
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #104
RiverLover Apr 2016 #102
anigbrowl Apr 2016 #107
Marr Apr 2016 #122
seabeyond Apr 2016 #110
Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #100
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #114
haikugal Apr 2016 #105
SharonClark Apr 2016 #112
wyldwolf Apr 2016 #116
brooklynite Apr 2016 #118
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #127
alarimer Apr 2016 #133
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #154
SFnomad Apr 2016 #156

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:58 AM

1. 7-7 is a tie. Ties happen.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:02 AM

3. Even ties that aren't.....

because somethings must not be allowed to happen, you know, like people's votes mattering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:13 AM

11. Ties in raw numbers that effect the delegate count are decided by coin tosses here in Iowa.

 

But what we have here is a tie in the number of delegates.

Not so different from what happened at my precinct, actually.

As you can see, Bernie supporters outnumbered Hillary supporters slightly, 176-160, but we don't send fractional delegates to the next level, so for our precinct, the results were a tie, 4-4.

If we had been choosing an odd number of delegates to send on to the next level, it is quite possible (despite the numbers that you see on that board) that we would have sent a delegate for O'Malley as well.

That's just the way things work.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:44 PM

77. What a victory for democracy....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #77)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

78. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is an exercise in Democracy.

 

Sending fractional delegates to the next level would get a bit gory, and is rather frowned upon here.



I hope to live to see the day that a coin is toss is needed in my own precinct.

I think that would be absolutely awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:44 AM

55. Do you understand the premise of the post?

The political result of the Wyoming vote is inaccurate, immoral and cheating by the owners of power and money.

Plus, the entire idea of super delegates is sick. It exists for the same reason - to be sure the rich and powerful are not challenged by regular human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:47 AM

56. I'm not talking about supers. Including supers is like including poll results.

 

Anybody can tell a pollster anything.

Poll responses, unlike actual pledged delegate counts, are not binding.



But a tie in pledged delegates is still a tie in pledged delegates.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:51 AM

58. That is also my point.

There is NO REASON, that a candidate who wins a state by the margin that Sanders did, should end up with tie in 'pledged' delegates.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #58)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:57 AM

60. The "margin" in a 7-7 delegate allocation is 0.

 

I don't know the details of how the caucus is run there, since I caucus in Iowa, but it doesn't seem like a particularly strange outcome to me.

Just like the 4-4 result in my own precinct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #58)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:07 PM

64. sure there is - because of established rules

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #64)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:09 PM

65. That is STILL my point. The rules are made by those who do not want

any normal human beings to have a chance to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #65)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:19 PM

67. were the rules different for Obama?, for Kerry?, for Gore?, for WJC?

no - it only becomes an issue when a non-democrat decides to use the Democratic Party to run for office - then his supporters fall all over themselves screaming conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:07 PM

147. I have always felt it was wrong.

BTW, Sanders is more a Democrat than those who call themselves Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:28 PM

119. Aren't super delegates elected officials?

 

In almost all cases I believe they are people who have been elected into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #119)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:44 AM

121. Some super delegates are LOBBYISTS!

So, the answer to your question is NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pastiche423 (Reply #121)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:42 AM

130. That is not true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #130)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:02 AM

139. It is very true unfortunately

... this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis.

More

There are many others sources to confirm this, but since you appear to lack research skills let me help you with that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lobbyist+superdelegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #139)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 12:54 PM

148. Thank you for the help

 

I did not realize this was the case. I appreciate the info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #148)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:03 PM

149. Your welcome, I only learned of it myself a couple months ago and at first thought "no way"

I did some research to be able to question what I thought was too wrong to be true only to find out it actually was.

I can very much therefore empathize with what you are feeling now, and can, because of what I originally thought, also understand why you thought it was not a true statement.

I think one of the things we must do after this election and things settle down is work within the party to change it, it is bad optics for the party and does none of us any favors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #149)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:12 PM

150. Agreed on all points

 

I had always read statements indicating that the superdelegates themselves are Democratic leaders like governors, members of Congress, and party officials. I did not realize that lobbyists were among that third category. That is definitely unfair.

I think this election cycle has brought to light many problems with the system that ought to be changed moving forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #150)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:22 PM

151. I am going to book mark this thread, in order to remind me to work with you on this after the GE

If I forget, remind me, we can post OPs raising awareness as well as gathering information with others on how best to petition the party to change this, maybe even get rid of that third category altogether.

Perhaps you disagree on my last point (or not), but if we keep it to those that have skin in the game regarding the need to represent those in the party that vote and are the constituency, they will have to account for their votes in their own elections - this I believe will ensure that they don't stray too far from the will of the people while still allowing them to serve their intended purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #151)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:19 PM

158. Sounds good

 

I would be happy to help raise awareness to this and other issues.

I also think the primary/caucus system needs to be looked at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #130)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:59 PM

155. I see the list and I see that Howard Dean

is on the list.

Howard Dean is a lobbyist. He is not the only lobbyist on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pastiche423 (Reply #155)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:14 PM

157. I've been corrected above

 

You are right - there are some lobbyists on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:30 AM

126. No! Rigged ties happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:00 AM

2. Bernie Sanders campaign are shitty organizers

They should have realized the benefits of surrogate voting and used it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:05 AM

7. What are you talking about?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:10 AM

10. Bernie's team didn't use the surrogate ballots

One can assume based on how awful caucuses are to attend he left votes on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:16 AM

14. how do you know they didn't use surrogate ballots?

 

Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:17 AM

15. They certainly didn't use them as effectively as Hillary's campaign did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:36 PM

120. Second place =/= total failure

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:11 AM

142. He won by 12%. That is NOT an effective (enough) use of surrogates.

It certainly helped keep Bernie's lead from being higher then 12%. But she obviously needed a heck of a lot more of them to eke out a .01% win, let alone a victory margin of 12%.

In any event, this thread is not about what Bernie should or should not have done to achieve his WIN, but rather a questioning of the fairness of a system that gave Hillary an equal amount of delegates (not counting the supers) despite her double digit loss.

I think that is a valid question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #142)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:14 AM

143. Very well said.

PotatoChip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #143)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:16 AM

144. Thanks RiverLover! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:33 PM

153. That's because Bernie is not a corrupt power broker fueled by personal ambition and greed,

 

like your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:23 AM

16. Of the more than 600 surrogate ballots received, 402 went in favor of Clinton and a mere 215 went to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:10 AM

9. Agreed. Ask your neighbors if they can get to the polls and if not get them an absentee ballot

This is extremely important in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:32 PM

152. That's a despicable attitude.

 

/ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:02 AM

4. Sanders got the hell out of New York as soon as he had a chance. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:15 AM

13. And he never moved back there to try to improve or

work for the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to livetohike (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:58 AM

61. And Hillary has spent her life in Arkansas, or is it Illinois? One never knows with her.

At least bernie actually grew up here.

hillary didn't come here to help us poor folks have a better quality of life, that's for damn tootin.

hillary came here as a carpetbagger because she wanted to be president.. and bought a mansion in the second richest county in the state, DUH !!!

the county, BTW, where my uncle was a dentist with a stock broker wife and also lived in a mansion and.. and the fucker charged me, my sister, my mother and his brother, my father, to fix our teeth! THAT is westchester county.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to livetohike (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:22 PM

68. Why didn't Hillary move back to arkansas

Or Illinois or wherever she is from and try to improve it? She carpetbagged it to a state she had no connection to because it was politically easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #68)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

92. Just like Bobby Kennedy

Senator from NY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:14 PM

66. And Hillary moved here solely for the purpose of running for the Senate seat . . .

. . . that Al D'Amato had announced his retirement from. Being a senator from New York was intended to be a notch on her resumé, so that when she ran for the presidency in 2008, she couldn't be criticized for having never held elective office. (Too bad for her, then, when an upstart from Illinois messed everything up for her.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #66)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:41 PM

75. she did a very good job looking after her constituents, and made sure to spend

 

plenty of time in all different parts of the state, even taking her vacations in upstate.

Lots of people move here to advance their careers.

Like they say, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Clinton made it here, Sanders made for the exit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #75)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:13 PM

86. She did exactly what Bobby Kennedy did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:03 AM

5. I'm wondering why primaries are held in the first place.

Look at both parties this election year. It's clear who is choosing the candidates and it's not the voters. I feel sorry for people who stood in line for hours to vote. They wasted their time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:04 AM

6. They sure did. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:27 AM

17. So should the candidate be chosen by amount of supporters at ad hoc rallies?

Determined by juxtaposed fish-eye lens photos? By the number of clicks on a HuffPo poll? By the number of Reddit supporters?

Or perhaps by the popular vote of Democrats?

PSA: This is the Democratic Underground

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:22 AM

39. The super delegates are a problem.

In Vermont, for example, which went for Bernie to a silly extent, he's only got one super I can think of: Peter Welch. It was kind of amusing last week when Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Hillary super, found himself defending Vermont against her. Anyhow, despite all the votes Bernie got in Vermont, a good chunk of them might as well not have been cast because they are being negated by super delegates who are not supporting the Vermont candidate of choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:32 AM

43. Any SD who's an elected official that votes against their state's popular vote...

 

...should be hounded out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:38 AM

49. I get a Vermont newspaper even though I live in NH, and there have been some very

convincing letters to the editor. People are really upset their vote is being negated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:40 AM

51. Good. Time to primary those SDs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:59 AM

62. So eliminate the Superdelegates, change the Caucuses to Primaries

Then close the primaries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:35 PM

70. That would work for me, even if my chosen candidate loses.

There are too many suspicions of funny business going on now. Too much going on under the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #70)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

93. I think that change could be a significant point of consensus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:43 PM

108. Talk to Tad, he was an engineer of the SDs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:14 AM

35. How do you figure that?

 

Clinton has more than a 2 million vote edge in the popular vote. Yes Sanders' count is somewhat deflated by doing well in caucuses which have lower turn out, but the fact is that more people have voted for Clinton than for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:27 AM

41. If we're going to have races based on the popular vote, that's what should be counted.

Currently, that's not the system. The popular vote can be thrown in the crapper by the superdelegates and, in fact, that is what is happening in some states right now. By the way, Hillary's popular vote edge is largely in states that never go to Democrats in the general election anyway . . . which should be an indication of how conservative she really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:58 PM

113. It is an outrage that the Republicans are suppressing the vote

and that anyone must stand in line for hours to vote. Hillary and Bernie's voters stood in line together to vote. It just happens that as of now Hillary has more raw votes and more pledged delegates than Bernie does. Just because your candidate is behind doesn't mean a vote has been wasted. It is still a show of support for your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonClark (Reply #113)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:27 AM

123. Here is how the game is rigged.

Bernie won Wyoming by 12 points and Hillary got 4 more delegates. It may be the "rules," but superdelegates amount to voter disenfranchisement. It's happening in both parties. Trump won South Carolina by a large margin, but somehow Cruz has gone back and stolen delegates and is going to be declared the winner in the state. Bottom line: the people who stand in line don't count. They're a charade supposed to depict democracy. Both parties should be ashamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:14 PM

89. Of course they do, his nomination would be a free gift to the GOP nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:13 AM

12. Feel the Whine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:32 AM

18. the cruel joke will happen in nov

when ms inevitable wonders why she gets trounced by trump...hint...it is because you played dirty and cheated against bernie, and his supporters want nothing to do with you

i am not sure which i would enjoy more..seeing hillary concede to bernie or seeing her concede to trump. of course, i would much rather have bernie president, but the look on her face when she has to concede the general to trump....that will be something to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:43 AM

28. FYI:

On Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

the cruel joke will happen in nov
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1696706

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is cheering for Trump in the GE.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:36 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Abusing the alert system will not net the results you expect.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, Hillary doesn't get a free pass just because she's Hillary.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:57 AM

32. thanks. its amazing how a comment can be pretzeled into what

they want it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:30 AM

42. It's almost as pretzeled as your contention that Clinton is cheating

 

I don't understand why Sanders supporters are so insistent that Clinton must be cheating. Obviously the fact that she's well ahead in both the delegate count and the popular vote count isn't enough to convince you that the conspiracies aren't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:37 PM

71. iowa, ma, arizona, nevada, and now wyoming.

much of which is being investigated.

but i am sure she had nothing to do with any of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:54 AM

31. Aw. You're bitter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:58 AM

33. i am betting a while lot of hillary supporters

will be bitter when she loses big in the ge.

but the party elites will be happy, so all is good, right? the 1% shall not be disturbed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:20 AM

36. There'll be hippie punching like never before seen!

Voter turnout on the left will be abysmally low, and Her Grace's supporters will of course blame everyone but themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:23 AM

40. Oh, believe you me, I'll enjoy coming back here on the 9th to rub their noses in it.

 

I have a nice, long-ass Ignore list to serve as my guide for who to taunt. They earned every last snarky word with their behavior here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:34 AM

46. Where you've been nothing but nice to Clinton supporters?

 

It's amusing that you seem to think you've played no part in the bad behavior when you're already ready to gloat and taunt people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:38 PM

72. and their awful candidate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:58 PM

80. If voters do not turn out, it's their fault.

Not liking the candidates is never a valid excuse not to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:11 PM

84. Right, I meant "not turn out for her." eom

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:49 AM

57. I understand your feeling but...

We can NOT let that asshole republican win. It is not worth seeing Hillary's look when she loses.

The ONLY way is for Bernard to win the primary !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #57)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:42 PM

74. then bernie better win the primary

because its stein for me otherwise. and if trump gets in, thats not on me...its on the corporate dnc for rigging this from the beginning and its on hillary for thinking she can trash bernie and get away with it.

i would never vote against hillary just to see the look on her face when she loses....i will vote my conscience...but i will watch her concession speech whether it is to bernie or trump or cruz.

i know there are many who will vote lesser of two evils, and i respect peoples right to make their own choice. but no more nose holding for me. can't live with myself anymore if i eat one more shit sandwich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #74)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:01 PM

81. I am with you 100%.


I just realized that I too could vote for Stein if for no other reason that I live in upstate NY in a conservative district. :>) I didn't know about her until recently.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #81)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:09 PM

83. yeah those of us not in swing areas

the primary is really it for us, becuse our states will be red or blue likely in a ge, so this


isn't really anything we can do much about even if we wanted to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:14 PM

90. Free Republic is over that way >>>>

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #90)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:15 PM

91. lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:29 PM

94. Looking forward to a Trump presidency? What a rat-fucky thing to say. WOW.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #94)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:23 PM

99. nice try. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:36 AM

19. Didn't Trump say the exact same thing about Mississippi?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:42 AM

20. Heavens! Who would've guessed that when only real registered Democrats

 

can vote to select THEIR candidate, there are no lopsided, runaway landslides for Mr. Sanders, the reluctant Dem?

'Tis indeed rigged, in favor of genuine, declared Democrats. Quel scandale ! Quel honte !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:50 AM

22. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:59 AM

24. Yes? Where's the "runaway" landslide à la NE, UT, WA, etc.

 

Hardly qualifies as "lopsided".

AND, THE DELEGATE N° IS A TIE.

Game, set, match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:26 AM

25. This is the first election I have ever seen, after 37 yrs, where a 12 point victory was called a tie

They split delegated yes, this happens sometimes in caucused when an election is close and happened here after a twelve point victory(likely because it is a small state voter wise and they have really weird rules) and that is fair if that is their system.

But he won this election handily and in every other election I've seen (and I've seen a great many) that would be announced with perhaps some remarks about how delegates are awarded is much more complicated or some such, hell even the MSM admitted he won it.

He won it, and he won it by twelve percentage points, they allot their delegates in a way that does not reflect that win, (hell it may even award more delegates than a margin of victory would assume using the same rules in some elections, say a 12 point victory and a 10 to 4 Delegate win) but you are just plain spinning. He won, that is why it was "called" by the networks. It is at the same time fair to say he walked away from his twelve point victory with an evenly split delegate count - that's all true and they get to make the rules on how they allot their State delegates. Just stop spinning and feel good about having won the luck of the delegate rules of the State. A delagte victory celebration is in order and I congratulate you on that! It's just the lying bit annoys me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:30 AM

26. Mold-breaking year...in all respects.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:31 AM

128. And a .02 margin

is called a "resounding victory" and a "mandate".

Don't forget that one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #128)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:53 AM

131. I haven't believe me. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #131)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:06 AM

132. I just remember being castigated

for suggesting that .02 wasn't really a ringing victory, but now see that a 12 point win isn't a win, it is a loss.

It is extremely frustrating. Especially since I have the very same problems with Clinton I did in 2008...she's a corporatist who is all about 'corporate persons' and the 1%, unless she's running for something at which point, she gives lip service to recognizing that the rest of us exist. I doubt, should she be elected, that she will do anything for human persons who make less than the 1% price of admission.

And yet, given the choice between her and Trump, Cruz, or whichever colossal douchenozzle the other side puts up, I'll end up casting my vote for her since I live in a swing state.

But, I tire of holding my nose and voting for the lesser evil and it is not a great lesson in integrity for my kids.

I do know one thing. No money donations to her campaign. She doesn't need the small amount of money I can afford to donate since she's got plenty of corporate donors who will spend whatever they need to via super pacs.

Also, I won't be volunteering for her campaign because her supporters tend to be so unpleasant to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:15 AM

134. I read an interesting article this am about the consequences of Lesser Evil voting

What will lesser evilism look like in 2016?
by Lance Selfa
3/30/2016


....whole thing is very good...snipped some good stuff....

MANY PEOPLE who agree with every argument raised above against supporting Clinton may still decide to vote for her--if only to prevent a Trump or Cruz from wreaking immediate damage on the tattered social welfare state and on civil liberties. Like the proverbial atheist who, wanting to hedge their bets against the possibility of an afterlife, asks to receive last rites before dying, many people will cast a vote for the lesser evil, just in case.

The fear of the greater evil is understandable. But is voting for the lesser of two evils really a strategy to even win "breathing space" to organize movements from below?

Consider Democrat Lyndon Johnson's election as a "peace candidate" in 1964. He was running against the reactionary and enthusiastically pro-war Republican Barry Goldwater, so many left voices decided to go "Half the way with LBJ." But once Johnson was elected, he escalated the war in Vietnam beyond anyone's worst nightmares.

Those who voted for the lesser evil to stop the greater evil got a combination of both.


That outcome is more typical than not, as U.S. socialist Hal Draper explained in an important article titled "Who Going to Be the Lesser Evil in '68?" Draper referenced what he called the "classic case of lesser evilism": The 1932 election in Germany, when the Social Democrats encouraged a vote for extreme conservative Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg to defeat Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party:

So the Lesser Evil, Hindenburg, won; and Hitler was defeated. Whereupon President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship, and the Nazis started taking over...the people voted for the Lesser Evil and got both [the greater and lesser evil]...This is exactly why 1932 is the classic case of the Lesser Evil, because even when the stakes were this high, even then, voting for the Lesser Evil meant historic disaster.

Draper's example is a dramatic one, but it illustrates the importance of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same "property" party--and that they operate as such.

What about issues like abortion rights on which there are real differences between the two parties? For example, Democrats are at least committed to maintaining abortion as a legally available option for women, whereas the Republicans are committed to outlawing it.

Within the limited scope of the question, that much is true. But supporting Democrats just because they aren't as bad as Republicans demonstrates the poverty of expectations among liberals. Democrats like Hillary Clinton are responsible for giving up so much ground to the right on the issue of reproductive rights, which at every step has enabled the anti-abortion fanatics to push for more.

Plus there is the question of how legal abortion was won in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court was packed with conservative appointees when it overturned laws banning abortion with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision--and Richard Nixon, an ardent opponent of choice, occupied the White House.

So what happened? The Supreme Court felt the pressure of thousands of women and men demonstrating for abortion rights in the preceding years.

As Draper notes elsewhere in his essay, when Democratic politicians are assured that the party's more liberal base will vote for them anyway, they spend most of their time moving to the right to win votes there.

Thus, Clinton and her surrogates have already talked up a strategy of bringing "moderate Republicans" repulsed by Trump into the Democratic "big tent."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
......snip..........

http://socialistworker.org/2016/03/30/what-will-lesser-evilism-look-like

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #134)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:25 AM

135. Wow

that article is great.

Thanks for posting.

THIS: "when Democratic politicians are assured that the party's more liberal base will vote for them anyway, they spend most of their time moving to the right to win votes there."

Is what I fear. Also, all the talk about "she can get things done" to me seems very much code for "she'll do what the right wants her to, in order to be able to say she got something done".

Again thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #135)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:02 AM

140. My pleasure.

We need to end this charade. Voting for the Lesser Evil is still evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #134)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:54 AM

138. First of all, hello to my favorite river enthusiast and dragonfly lover! Second, great article

I would add only a bit of fairly well known truth regarding a point your snip made toward the end.

As Draper notes elsewhere in his essay, when Democratic politicians are assured that the party's more liberal base will vote for them anyway, they spend most of their time moving to the right to win votes there.

Thus, Clinton and her surrogates have already talked up a strategy of bringing "moderate Republicans" repulsed by Trump into the Democratic "big tent."


This has always been the game plan of the Third way hybrid Right wing movement, one might say it's most long lived goal.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner.

More

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #138)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 10:04 AM

141. Excellent post & link, Dragonfli! Thanks!!



They are republicans who've infiltrated the Democratic Party. The Clintons at the helm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:26 AM

136. I assume like myself, you have seen several election cycles, since well before the internet age

This stuff is new. The norm would be to call the .02 victory "a virtual tie", and the 56 to 44 victory would have been called a "very decisive victory", the level of praise the next step from "landslide" which would have needed maybe a point or two for it to be refereed to as such, but most assuredly not a tie. There would also have been some surprised and in depth discussion by the TV anchor about how strange the way the delegates must be awarded for them to share equally the delegate count, after such a decisive victory, likely even a guest familiar with the system to embarrassingly explain it.

They are changing the game now, because the game is changing to a rigged one and they need a new and very selectively used narrative to make it less obvious.Then again what is new could be said to simply be a resurgence of something much older.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #136)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:34 AM

137. Exactly what I've been thinking

The game has always been rigged to some extent, but it has become much more blatant over the past couple of cycles.

I've been politically active all of my adult life and I'm reaching the point where I don't even believe my vote matters anymore.

My grandmother, who took me with her to vote from the time I was five years old, who told me that voting was the most important responsibility anyone could ever have, would be so sad to see what it has become now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:43 AM

21. I don't like caucuses, but it's what some states prefer. The rules were set long ago, so it's not

some conspiracy against Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:55 AM

23. But, but...tinfoil hats feel SO good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:36 AM

27. So let me see if I understand thew Camp Sanders narrative

1. Hillary wins the overall vote in Nevada, yet Sanders supporters cheerlead the maneuvering in the next round to try to get more delegates, despite losing the popular vote.

2. Hillary wins the overall vote in Missouri, yet Sanders supporters cheerlead the maneuvering in the next round to try to get more delegates, despite losing the popular vote.

3. Sanders wins the overall vote in Wyoming, but because of the way the pledged delegate are allocated, they both earn 7 of the 14 pledged ones. Sanders supporters cry "foul!"

Is that about the long & the short of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:44 AM

29. The problem as I see it...

is the caucus system. As a Bernie supporter, I don't want to see the will of the voters be overturned because of inane party rules as he did in Nevada and Missouri -- that is tantamount to disenfranchisement. Similarly, here, though he won the vote, he still tied.

The caucus system is not the best system or even an adequate system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:36 PM

103. Actually you don't understand, at least #!.

No one was "maneuvering in the next round", Hillary's supporters did not show up to vote at the county conventions, particularly Clark County. Bernie supporters did.

In Wyoming, Bernie supporters came out to vote and will probably do so at the next level. Will Hillary's supporters do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #103)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:33 PM

109. The fact that you carp about "the next level" shows how little Camp Sanders cares about democracy

The caucus attendees in Nevada expressed a preference for Clinton, and you are happy that the so-called "next level" can thwart that. This undercuts Sanders' message of honesty and integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #109)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:49 PM

111. I don't think 'carp' means what you think it means.

Perhaps 'mention' or 'reference' would be more accurate choices.

And all that needs to happen in Wyoming for Hillary to keep her delegates is for her delegates to show up, the same thing that would have kept their win in Clark County.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #111)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:07 PM

115. It means bitch and moan, or whine, or bellyache, or throw a hissy fit, etc...

Hopefully that clears it up for ya.

The entire "showing up" thing is bullshit. One person, one vote. You shouldn't have to keep showing up and showing up and showing up to make your vote count, that is the only reason Sanders won most of these white, low-delegate caucus states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #115)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:01 PM

117. Take it up with the Democratic Party.

They made the rules...you know, that same Democratic Party that created super delegates so that they could control the process.

Are you saying that Hillary delegates just aren't informed enough to show up at county and state conventions? Or is it that they aren't committed enough to Hillary that they will take the time to show up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #117)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:21 AM

125. "Take it up with the Democratic Party"

So, the next time that your Sanders brethren have a hissy fit about the existence of the superdelegates in general, or the demand that the superdelegates be forced to vote as their state voted, I will provide them a link to this post.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #125)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:36 AM

145. And the next time Hillary supporters complain

about caucuses and how unfair it is that Bernie's supporters are more active, I'll link to yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiva (Reply #145)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 11:40 AM

146. Yep, Netflix & chill isn't a job

Some of us have actual ones, so we can't sit around a rec center for 8 hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:32 AM

124. nailed it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:51 AM

30. Did he know the party's rules when he decided to latch onto the Democratic Party

for his presidential run?

It's a little obnoxious to join a long-established organization and immediately start complaining about its longstanding rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:11 AM

34. Nye, many of Senator Sanders new, young registered

supporters are participating in their first rodeo. Do we want to encourage them to become cynical, to get in line, to follow the rules? Do we want to build a Democratic Party for and of the future that will shatter the Republican Party for decades? Rules can be changed, lines redrawn and working for these goals can bring joy to a fight that is against the odds.

As always, just by opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:20 AM

37. WY superdelegates violating the will of the voters.

 

That system needs to die...and its anti-democratic results contested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:33 AM

45. Expensive, but Deb sure knows how to put on a good show.

Realistic and interactive, too, like the "Little People" playing a part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:34 AM

47. Yep. Sham democracy from sham Democrats.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:41 AM

52. Thank goodness for the Internet.

The warmongers are trying to work the Democracy out of that, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:21 AM

38. "cruel joke"

...everything against Sanders is a conspiracy for you folks.

This just makes the Wyoming failure to net delegates for Sanders even sweeter. What sorry, bitter amateurs this camp is running with..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:32 AM

44. Well, cons will be cons.

This liberal is frustrated with a rigged system, not bitter.

Nothing will change if Hillary gets the nom. If she's president, she has many "commitments" to repay & things could get much, much worse. Like Bill, she'll enact many republican policies as a Democrat....

Not bitter. Frustrated, and a bit sad about our future as a nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:37 AM

48. Sanders should have formed his own party and run

It's not as if the Democratic Party rules changed after he got in the race. If you don't like a party's rules, create your own and choose a nominee as you see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingFlorez (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:41 AM

54. Yup.

We need to do that.

I see that happening. Many of us do.

Here's Robert Reich, a very cool look into a possible future~

How the Peoples Party Prevailed in 2020
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016

Third parties have rarely posed much of a threat to the dominant two parties in America. So how did the People’s Party win the U.S. presidency and a majority of both houses of Congress in 2020?

It started four years before, with the election of 2016.

As you remember, Donald Trump didn’t have enough delegates to become the Republican candidate, so the GOP convention that summer was “brokered” – which meant the Party establishment took control, and nominated the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.

Trump tried to incite riots but his “I deserve to be president because I’m the best person in the world!” speech incited universal scorn instead, and he slunk off the national stage (his last words, shouted as he got into his stretch limousine, were “Fu*ck you, America!”)

On the Democratic side, despite a large surge of votes for Bernie Sanders in the final months of the primaries, Hillary Clinton’s stable of wealthy donors and superdelegates put her over the top.

Both Republican and Democratic political establishments breathed palpable sighs of relief, and congratulated themselves on remaining in control of the nation’s politics.

They attributed Trump’s rise to his fanning of bigotry and xenophobia, and Sanders’s popularity to his fueling of left-wing extremism.

They conveniently ignored the deeper anger in both camps about the arbitrariness and unfairness of the economy, and about a political system rigged in favor of the rich and privileged.

And they shut their eyes to the anti-establishment fury that had welled up among independents, young people, poor and middle-class Democrats, and white working-class Republicans.

So they went back to doing what they had been doing before. Establishment Republicans reverted to their old blather about the virtues of the “free market,” and establishment Democrats returned to their perennial call for “incremental reform.”

And Wall Street, big corporations, and a handful of billionaires resumed pulling the strings of both parties to make sure regulatory agencies didn’t have enough staff to enforce rules, and to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Establishment politicians also arranged to reduce taxes on big corporations and simultaneously increase federal subsidies to them, expand tax loopholes for the wealthy, and cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it all. (“Sadly, we have no choice,” said the new President, who had staffed the White House and Treasury with Wall Streeters and corporate lobbyists, and filled boards and commissions with corporate executives).

Meanwhile, most Americans continued to lose ground.

Even before the recession of 2018, most families were earning less than they’d earned in 2000, adjusted for inflation. Businesses continued to shift most employees off their payrolls and into “on demand” contracts so workers had no idea what they’d be earning from week to week. And the ranks of the working poor continued to swell.

At the same time, CEO pay packages grew even larger, Wall Street bonus pools got fatter, and a record number of billionaires were becoming multi-billionaires.

Then, of course, came the recession, along with bank losses requiring another round of bailouts. The Treasury Secretary, a former managing director of Morgan Stanley, expressed shock and outrage, explaining the nation had no choice and vowing to “get tough” on the banks once the crisis was over.

Politics abhors a vacuum. In 2019, the People’s Party filled it.

Its platform called for getting big money out of politics, ending “crony capitalism,” abolishing corporate welfare, stopping the revolving door between government and the private sector, and busting up the big Wall Street banks and corporate monopolies.

The People’s Party also pledged to revoke the Trans Pacific Partnership, hike taxes on the rich to pay for a wage subsidy (a vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) for everyone earning below the median, and raise taxes on corporations that outsource jobs abroad or pay their executives more than 100 times the pay of typical Americans.

Americans rallied to the cause. Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called themselves liberals and progressives against a political establishment that had shown itself incapable of hearing what they had been demanding for years.

The rest, as they say, is history.

http://robertreich.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:38 AM

50. If Sanders does manage to get more pledged delegates than Clinton and still ends up

 

losing the nomination due to party insiders and super delegates, a lot of people will leave the party. A lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:41 AM

53. If that happens, might as well hold Trump's inauguration immediately.

 

If the difference ends up being Hillary superdelegates from states Bernie won, the party is toast. And it will deserve it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:55 AM

59. Caucus vs. primary

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/caucus-vs-primary/[/url]

Caucuses were once the most common way of choosing presidential nominees. Today, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming and Iowa are the only states to rely solely on the caucus, according to the Federal Election Commission. The territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands use the caucus also. All other states and Puerto Rico use primary elections or a combination of the voting formats.

Caucus meetings are arranged by either the state or political party to take place at a certain place and time. Caucuses are unique in that they allow participants to openly show support for candidates. Voting is often done by raising hands or breaking into groups according to the candidate participants support. The results of the caucus are used to determine the delegates present at county, state and national nominating conventions of each political party. Most often, only registered voters can participate in a caucus, and they are limited to the caucus of the party with which they are affiliated.

Primaries are a direct, statewide process of selecting candidates and delegates. Similar to the general election process, primary voters cast secret ballots for the candidates of their choosing. The results are used to determine the configuration of delegates at the national convention of each party. Primaries come in two basic forms: In an open primary, all registered voters can vote for any candidate, regardless of their political affiliation. Registered Democrats may vote for a Republican candidate, and Republican voters may cast ballots for a Democrat, for instance. And registered Independents can participate in either party’s primary. But in a closed primary, voters may vote only for candidates of the party with which they are registered.


On edit: Results from Wyoming per The New York Times.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming[/url]

Candidates Vote Pct. Delegates
Bernie Sanders 156 55.7% 7
Hillary Clinton 124 44.3 7
Uncommitted 0 0.0 —
Other 0 0.0 —

100% reporting (23 of 23 precincts)
Winner called by A.P.

*Vote totals for the Wyoming Democratic Party are state convention delegates won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:05 PM

63. so the results were rigged because rules were followed - got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 12:25 PM

69. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:40 PM

73. Nice of you to quote from Murdoch's NY Post.

That paper is a RW rag. Wyoming was not a blowout for Sanders. Therefore, they each received 7 pledged delegates.

As for NY, he's not going to win the state. He may have been born in NY, but left the state in 1968. Hillary was NY's senator for 8 years and she still lives in the state. It's actually funny that he thinks that he'll win it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:44 PM

76. He was Gored by the system

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:58 PM

79. Rigged IS Right.

[font size="6"][font color="green"]Great Moments in American Fascism: Republicans of Florida[/font color][/font size]



Here's how much of the nation's press were magically transformed from watchdogs into lapdogs:




The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto)

The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971

Introduction

In 1971, Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. [font color="red"]Anderson cautioned that Powell “might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in behalf of business interests.”[/font color]

Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy.

Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building — a focus we share, though often with sharply contrasting goals.* (See our endnote for more on this.)

So did Powell’s political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. [font color="red"]Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot questions.[/font color] On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.

CONTINUED...

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/



This story continues through today. Ask anybody you like: "Have you heard of Judge Laurence Silberman?"

Odds are good they haven't. Here's why it matters (and what's missing from the Media Monopoly's "product":

Know your BFEE: Judge Laurence Silberman, Go-To Guy of the Military Industrial Complex [View all]

If you're not into "money trumps peace," that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:05 PM

82. Caucuses are undemocratic, not "rigged".

They disenfranchise voters, particularly the disabled. And the rules create odd vote allocations. At my friend's precinct in Seattle, the votes created a tally of 3.1 for Sanders, 1.9 for Hillary. That turned into a 4-1 advantage for Sanders. I don't like that but I didn't go around complaining it was rigged. Caucuses do produce unfair results, and they really depress participation, but Wyo was not rigged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:12 PM

85. Do you not see how you're being manipulated?

 

The newspaper gets more eyeballs on the story by alleging 'it's rigged!! Eleven!' compared to providing more accurate but less exciting information about how the delegates are apportioned on a county-by-county basis, and how that information is well known to the candidates' campaign managers long in advance of the actual contest. The delegates in WY are not allocated on the basis of statewide totals, but this article writer chooses to imply that they should be because that makes for a more exciting story. It's exploiting your ignorance of the voting system in order to manipulate your emotions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #85)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:30 PM

95. Even when people explain the facts, the CT theories persist. It is embarrassing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #85)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:41 PM

106. BS. Its the other way around. ie SALON- "10 Ways the Dem Primary Has Been Rigged from the Start"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:54 PM

159. LOL Salon

 

Crapulous stories for the credulous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:33 AM

129. This ^^^

The campaigns should not be surprised by this. Things are not going to be changed in states just so Bernie can win. The claim of "rigged" because the Bernie supporters did not know about the process is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:13 PM

87. It's called...math?

If he had hit 58%, that would have been an 8-6 win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:13 PM

88. Maybe others can say this is just politics.

I cannot. I am leaving the Dems as soon as I vote for Bernie in the primary. Can't wait to be an independent. I know clinton will be the nominee and I am sure she will win. If she remains as manipulative as she is now, I wonder if she will be a one-term president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:32 PM

96. People were cool with the system 8 yrs ago, when it worked for Obama. I do not do hypocrisy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:36 PM

97. And if Hillary wins this rigged process, they expect us to vote for her

Because the Republicans are so bad!

And we can't risk the Supreme Court!

That's the sum total of their appeal to Bernie supporters. It is not nearly enough for me to vote for a corrupt corporatist war monger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #97)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:47 PM

98. Not really, no

 

A lot of Bernie supporters are only voting this cycle because of Bernie and won't stick around to vote in the general if he loses but a lot of people who don't bother to vote during the primaries will do so during the general. You do whatever makes you feel good on election day, even if that includes staying at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #98)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:25 PM

101. I know several states will have marijuana initiatives on their ballots.

 

I would hope (and think) that this will drive some turnout. It will probably also get Jill Stein more votes than she's ever had, if Clinton is the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #101)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:37 PM

104. I wouldn't be too optimistic

 

Last time we had recreational weed on the ballot here in CA I made the mistake of believing that many lifelong stoners' enthusiasm would translate into votes. Come election day it was 'nah, too much hassle, can't find my polling place' followed by half-hearted conspiracy theorizing about other people having their vote suppressed when the ballot initiative failed. I'm pro weed but stoners aren't a reliable voting demographic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anigbrowl (Reply #98)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:33 PM

102. You keep telling yourself that. Most Bernie supporters here are lifelong Dems, like me.

No

more

If they are all-in for a corrupt, purchased, pro-war, pro-deregulation, pro-outsourcing, pro-off shoring our jobs, pro-BigOil, pro-BigAg, pro-continued corrupt campaign & lobbying financing candidate, they're no longer my party.

That is everything FDR was against & there are MANY of us Dems who are at the breaking point. This is the last straw.

Corporate Wall Street Dems are JUST as bad as republicans. Maybe worse, because they pretend to be for The People, and they are in for Business profits equaling payoffs to get them reelected.

Its an endless cycle of corruption & something drastic has to cut it off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #102)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:42 PM

107. OK, but so what? DU isn't representative of the general population

 

I was going to explain further but then I remembered that folks like yourself tend not to be interested in things like statistical theory so I guess I won't bother. In brief, I think you're confusing intensity of feeling with depth of support for your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 03:14 AM

122. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #97)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:35 PM

110. I expect absolutely nothing from you. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:25 PM

100. If seh manages to steal the Nom

She will get very little cooperation from the base going forward.

And probably loose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #100)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:00 PM

114. She will lose the general and if not, our congress will grow even more horrid.

 

She's like a walking ad for Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:38 PM

105. Indeed. We are learning fast aren't we?! Let's use our infusion of energy from this to tear the

Fucking rigged system down.

Fuck them all to hell!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:53 PM

112. It's not rigged, that is how caucuses work

Every precinct (or county convention) has so many delegates to move forward to the next level. I'm sure your local party would show you the rules for selecting delegates if you asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:21 PM

116. Post #67

were the rules different for Obama?, for Kerry?, for Gore?, for WJC? no - it only becomes an issue when a non-democrat decides to use the Democratic Party to run for office - then his supporters fall all over themselves screaming conspiracy.

Surely Sanders' supporters, the political sophisticates that they are, were aware of the process. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:15 PM

118. Will you be having a red or white whine with your cheese?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:31 AM

127. And DWS says the supers are to make sure there is no grassroots.........peoples vote do not count

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 09:14 AM

133. I don't understand this, but I think caucuses are undemocratic.

Secret ballot is the only way to go. More people participate in primaries anyway, which is always good, whatever the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:35 PM

154. Rigged, shmigged...those are the rules. Don't like it?

 

Become a member in good standing of the Dem Party for more than just an opportunistic primary run, why don't ya?

That way you can "be the change you seek".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 02:11 PM

156. Sanders cheerleaders like the rules when it allows them to get more delegates in Nevada

 

but they see conspiracies and cry that it's rigged when the rules end up benefitting Secretary Clinton. You can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread