Hillary & Bern are mxing it up on CNN

[Exophase]

That is a pure speculation with frankly not a lot going for it. An equally plausible, if not more so, hypothesis can be made: People generally do not like bullies, and especially in this cycle the anti-establishment sentiment has played a big role, as observed from both parties' primaries. See Republican process and how The Duck profited from the anti-establishment sentiment. Sanders likewise might have benefit from a similar electoral mood, which explains his rapid rise - his rise is arguably bigger than The Duck's, considering the latter's name recognition in the national stage.

Then you tell me, what purpose has the overwhelming level of early endorsements served? And I don't just mean those coming from the AP investigations, since they were just answering a question, but all the superdelegates who have made public statements supporting Hillary. When is a political endorsement by a politically relevant person not made with the intention of bolstering their campaign?

Or did they just all choose badly?

Again, if one contests the idea of closed primaries as undemocratic, then equally strong, if not more so, charges can be made against the closed caucuses where a tiny minority of activists cast the lion's share of votes. And not every primary is closed to party members. So it is difficult to say who benefited more from the process.

They should do away with closed caucuses too. And I never said every primary was closed, it doesn't have to be across the board to have an effect.

What is certain is that both candidates participated in the process with the knowledge of the rules and settings. I do not think it helps anyone complaining about the rules at this point.

If you want to have the slightest sliver of a chance of becoming president you need to run with one of the two parties.

So long as these two organizations have such decisive control they should absolutely be open to criticism when their rules are not inclusive enough.

Ideally I'd prefer the voting process was completely overhauled into something more like STV, but then there wouldn't be a need for primaries at all and the parties would lose a lot of traction.

 

[lopri]

Then you tell me, what purpose has the overwhelming level of early endorsements served? And I don't just mean those coming from the AP investigations, since they were just answering a question, but all the superdelegates who have made public statements supporting Hillary. When is a political endorsement by a politically relevant person not made with the intention of bolstering their campaign?

Oh, I am not saying that the superdelegates are not supporting Clinton. What I am suggesting is that their support might not have helped Clinton, but more likely hurt her by painting her as an establishment candidate, in a time when the electoral mood is against Washington D.C. I find it hard to believe that Sanders could have won so much support this far, if voters thought their votes had diminished values or the game was rigged.

 

[Exophase]

Oh, I am not saying that the superdelegates are not supporting Clinton. What I am suggesting is that their support might not have helped Clinton, but more likely hurt her by painting her as an establishment candidate, in a time when the electoral mood is against Washington D.C. I find it hard to believe that Sanders could have won so much support this far, if voters thought their votes had diminished values or the game was rigged.

I never thought you were doubting that the superdelegates supported Hillary, but it sounds like you're saying they all made this big mistake voicing that support.

Obviously not all prospective voters are going to be swayed by superdelegates but that hardly means that none of them are.

Another factor is that the superdelegates are often influential figures themselves and so their endorsement sways some votes. That and some people trust that they, as party officials, have a good handle on who has the best chance of winning the general election. There may be a lot of anti-establishment presence in the election this cycle but there are also a lot of long term party members who are big establishment, which is why I've seen "he's not even a real Democrat" gain traction in a lot of online comment sections.

 

[lopri]

But we have a very recent history of this superdelegate controversy in 2008, which turned out to be largely a non-controversy. Back then Clinton had a large early lead in superdelegate commitments v. Obama, which eroded over time as people voted against her.

That experience kind of reinforces my thought. Sure the superdelegates may have influences to some voters, for both candidates, but it is difficult to prove who benefited more. And in the end, the electoral victories are likely to win the nomination.

 

[Exophase]

The level of superdelegate backing Hillary got early in the primaries in 2008 is nowhere remotely close to what she got in 2016.

 

[lopri]

But the controversy was, iirc, bigger due to the tight race from very early on between Obama and Clinton. Conversely, in this cycle Clinton's lead among the pledged delegates is much larger, and people learned that superdelegates are not really a factor from the experience of 2008.

I also note a little bit of irony from Sanders who now tries to appeal to superdelegates since he is far behind in pledged delegate count. There is nothing wrong with it and he is playing by the rule, but if he does not narrow the gap between pledged delegates superdelegates are unlikely to change their allegiance.

 

[waggy]

This election has served one major purpose. It has shown the US that the votes and who the PEOPLE want really does not matter.

Both sides have it rigged so that the person the party wants gets elected. Normally that person is also the parties favorite. This year both sides are in chaos.

The democrats have Hillary and BS. so many issues with the super delegates that it is making the younger generation wonder how Hillary can lose a state yet win the majority of its delegates. While she would still be winning if it was honest it would be a very close race.

on the other side it's far worse. You have Trump who seems to be the top GOP guy. Then you have the GOP leaders coming out with situations on how they can put in a 3rd guy (since the #2 guy is almost as bad).

 

[dank69]

It's pretty telling that when sanders is asked directly about what influence Wall Street has had on hillary specifically and he totally side steps the question. It's a bullshit accusation and sanders is a disgrace for using this line of attack.

That shit pissed me off. That is almost enough for me to consider abandoning him for my primary vote.

 

[evident]

Superdelegates providing an unprecedented amount of endorsement for one side very early in the primary process surely has an impact. A lot of people either don't think they'll switch or even know that they can, especially earlier on when the media was less focused on clarifying this. Even if they're wrong about this the damage is still done if it saps morale to the point where people don't bother voting because they see

Another big way in which the system is against candidates like Bernie is closed primary states. Especially ones like NY that require party registration be performed many months ahead of the primaries. This hurts less strongly party affiliated and more younger-audience focused candidates like Bernie, who had an uphill battle of telling people to register for the party so early (vs Hillary's supporters who were far more likely to already be registered dems). Right now there are crowds gathering in NY trying to get open primaries pushed into law - and by appearances basically none of them want to vote for Hillary - but of course it's too late for this cycle.

Finally, I don't know what's happening here, but even in the closed states there have been a ton of reports of democrats losing their party registration before the primaries. I don't know if this is random or not, but I've only heard complaints from Bernie supporters. it's possible for example that the registration drops happened close to the primaries and hence didn't affect early voters (where Hillary has far more support), or that long time party members were less affected. I'm hoping this is actually investigated and we get more information about what happened here and who it impacted.

People should know the rules of their state about voting in primaries before the elections start.

 

[DrPizza]

They should do away with closed caucuses too. And I never said every primary was closed, it doesn't have to be across the board to have an effect.

If you want to have the slightest sliver of a chance of becoming president you need to run with one of the two parties.
.

Why should they get rid of closed primaries or caucuses? Right now, with open primaries, if you're a Hilary fan, you go to the Republican side and vote for Trump.

This election has served one major purpose. It has shown the US that the votes and who the PEOPLE want really does not matter.

WTF are you talking about? Hilary has received far more votes than Bernie. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in NY. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in PA. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in a couple more states. And, 4 more days until Bernie Bros whine that the system is rigged. I dislike all of the candidates running right now, especially Trump and Cruz. But, Bernie fans aren't facing reality. "Bernie will put a carbon tax in place!" No he won't. 95% of Congress would vote against it. At least there's a chance that Clinton can work with Congress. You might get incremental changes - you're not going to get the massive change Bernie is promising.

edit: I was thinking NY and PA were the same week, I now see they're a week apart.

 

[Brainonska511]

Superdelegates providing an unprecedented amount of endorsement for one side very early in the primary process surely has an impact. A lot of people either don't think they'll switch or even know that they can, especially earlier on when the media was less focused on clarifying this. Even if they're wrong about this the damage is still done if it saps morale to the point where people don't bother voting because they see

Why should the potential de facto leader of the party not seek out endorsements from within the party? These are people that are going to have to work with the nominee/future president on pushing forward a platform. And seeing the shit show that the Republican race is, I bet they're wishing now that they had some superdelegates.

Another big way in which the system is against candidates like Bernie is closed primary states. Especially ones like NY that require party registration be performed many months ahead of the primaries. This hurts less strongly party affiliated and more younger-audience focused candidates like Bernie, who had an uphill battle of telling people to register for the party so early (vs Hillary's supporters who were far more likely to already be registered dems). Right now there are crowds gathering in NY trying to get open primaries pushed into law - and by appearances basically none of them want to vote for Hillary - but of course it's too late for this cycle.

People should have known the rules. I knew when I was 18, if I wanted to vote in NYS' Democratic primaries, I'd need to be registered as a Democrat. I don't always agree with the Democrats, but they more closely align with my views and I wanted primary access. Perhaps the deadline in NYS is a bit stringent and should be relaxed a little, but perhaps people should give more thought next time towards registering for a party when they register to vote in a closed primary state.

As for open primaries, I don't see the point. The parties are private organizations - why should outsiders be allowed to decide who the nominee is for the party? They can have their say in the general election if they don't want to bother checking a box on a registration form.

Finally, I don't know what's happening here, but even in the closed states there have been a ton of reports of democrats losing their party registration before the primaries. I don't know if this is random or not, but I've only heard complaints from Bernie supporters. it's possible for example that the registration drops happened close to the primaries and hence didn't affect early voters (where Hillary has far more support), or that long time party members were less affected. I'm hoping this is actually investigated and we get more information about what happened here and who it impacted.

I don't know about this as it just seems to be a lot of anecdotes from the internet. But if that's true, that's messed up.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Don't worry. Trump will run as a third party candidate when he loses the nom. That however will virtually guaratee the Hildabeast's election though.

Personally, I admire her persistence. I also think that BECAUSE she is so corrupt, she knows how the game is played and more importantly, knows how to win.

If he does maybe we can convince Bernie to run as a third party as well and completely break the two party system.

 

[Brainonska511]

If he does maybe we can convince Bernie to run as a third party as well and completely break the two party system.

So you want a Republican president? Because that's what will likely happen if no one hits 270 electoral votes thanks to Republicans controlling a majority of states in the House of Representatives.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...

 

[PokerGuy]

Fun debate, the liar and the loon 😀

 

[SMOGZINN]

So you want a Republican president? Because that's what will likely happen if no one hits 270 electoral votes thanks to the 12th Amendment.

I know how it works. I think it just might be worth it if it creates the needed resentment to change the system.

Let's face it. Our political system is running full speed towards a cliff. We need to change course or we are going to crash. If it takes Congress appointing Jeb to be President to make Americans wake up and see that our system is failing, then so be it.

Something has to change, and I've accepted that it is going to be painful.

 

[swamplizard]

This can't be good.
Frankly, both Bernie and Hillary are on the same page.
All that this nit picking does is drive a wedge between their supporters.
If this keeps going the way it has been, the entire campaign that is, democrats will never unite and in the end we'll have a president Ted Cruz.
Then everyone, both Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters will be royally screwed.
Just keep this in perspective.
Frankly, there is not a huge difference between Bernie and Hillary.
Lets not blow this out of proportion.
Stay focused.
If you are a progressive and a democrat, you'd welcome either of these two candidates into the Whitehouse.
Keep in mind the alternative.
Keep in mind what any of the republicans still in the race would do to America if ever given the chance.
All of the republican candidates, even old nice guy John Kasich, would repeal Obamacare, would sign any constitutional amendment on their desk to ban same sex message, and would sign any constitutional amendment on their desk to ban all abortion as well as 90% of all birth control.
Because all of those republican candidates believe life begins when a guy first buys a drink for a chick in a bar.
And THAT is a fact!!!

For gods sake democrats, progressives, and independents, damn it just stay focused.
Sit back and consider the horror of the alternative should democrats fail to unite.

Bernie wants a $15 minimum wage. Hillary proposes $12 as a start.
Ted, Donald, and nice guy John believe the current $7.25 is just fine.
Actually, Donald believes $7.25 is too much.
Donald wants to bring back jobs from Mexico by paying American workers the same $2 wage workers in Mexico are paid.
And that would do it, if American workers don't mind living under a bridge or working 90 hours a week just to remain in poverty.
And you can be assured.... NO ONE will have healthcare insurance except for Ted, Donald and John's family.
The poor middle class will pay extremely high taxes for healthcare, but they will not be allowed to partake in it.
Their taxes will provide healthcare for the families of that top 1%.
.
.

Hey sportage,

Though I support Bernie, I admit that Hillary is a fine candidate for POTUS, either of these two beats the alternative. Vote Democratic! 😎

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Fun debate, the liar and the loon 😀

still so much better than the gop monkeys flinging shit at each other and talking about the size of their dicks.

 

[soundforbjt]

Fun debate, the liar and the loon 😀

Hmmm...Lyin Ted and Trump ?

 

[woolfe9998]

The democrats have Hillary and BS. so many issues with the super delegates that it is making the younger generation wonder how Hillary can lose a state yet win the majority of its delegates. While she would still be winning if it was honest it would be a very close race.

Which state did Clinton lose the vote and get the majority of delegates?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Which state did Clinton lose the vote and get the majority of delegates?

Bernie won in WY, but split the delegates 50/50, which is bullshit. Even won by double digits.

 

[Sonikku]

Why should they get rid of closed primaries or caucuses? Right now, with open primaries, if you're a Hilary fan, you go to the Republican side and vote for Trump.


WTF are you talking about? Hilary has received far more votes than Bernie. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in NY. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in PA. 4 more days until she has a majority of votes in a couple more states. And, 4 more days until Bernie Bros whine that the system is rigged. I dislike all of the candidates running right now, especially Trump and Cruz. But, Bernie fans aren't facing reality. "Bernie will put a carbon tax in place!" No he won't. 95% of Congress would vote against it. At least there's a chance that Clinton can work with Congress. You might get incremental changes - you're not going to get the massive change Bernie is promising.

We might get incremental changes that further facilitate the few getting richer at the expense of the many.

 

[dank69]

Which state did Clinton lose the vote and get the majority of delegates?

MIchigan looks to be the only one so far. Early on NH and Colorado looked like they were going to be the same thing, according to media reports, but they are now shown as equal delegates even though Bernie won them both.

 

[Brainonska511]

MIchigan looks to be the only one so far. Early on NH and Colorado looked like they were going to be the same thing, according to media reports, but they are now shown as equal delegates even though Bernie won them both.

That chart looks like it includes superdelegates in the totals, which makes it a bit disingenuous when talking about how delegates were split because of voting in primaries and caucuses.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Michigan: Sanders 67, Clinton 63

 

[Brainonska511]

Bernie won in WY, but split the delegates 50/50, which is bullshit. Even won by double digits.

This seems to answer your question:

Because Wyoming has a certain way of allocating delegates.
Wyoming has 18 delegates. Of those 18, 4 delegates are unpledged super-delegates (Wyoming's members of the DNC) and the remaining 14 are pledged delegates. In virtually every Democratic contest, pledged delegates are allocated into three different tranches. There are:

• District-level delegates: Each congressional district within a state is allocated a certain number of delegates given a variety of variables. These delegates are allocated proportionally based on the result of the district.
• At-large delegates: These are delegates that are allocated proportionally based on the state-wide results.
• PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates: These are also delegates that are allocated proportionally based on the state-wide result, they're just picked from a select pool of people.

Wyoming has eight district-level delegates, four at-large delegates, and two PLEO delegates.
Since Wyoming only has one congressional district, all of the delegates are allocated based on the state-wide results. There is, universally, a 15% threshold in Democratic contests that a candidate must cross in order to gain any delegates, but once you cross that, you get a proportional amount of delegates with the stipulation being that generally only whole numbers of delegates are awarded. Now, since there are different tranches of delegates, they are all dealt with separately. The district-level delegates, naturally, have the smallest tiers because there are more of them, while the PLEO delegates have the largest.
In this instance, there is a tier for the PLEO delegates that ranges from 25% of the vote to 75% of the vote where those delegates are split evenly; 74.999% of the vote is about 1.49 delegates, which gets rounded down to 1. Similarly, the middle tier for the at-large delegates between roughly 31.5% and 62.5%, and the middle tier for the district-level delegates ranging from roughly 44% to 56%. So if the vote ends up in the 56% to 44% range for a two-person race, as happened in this instance, Wyoming's delegates are split right down the middle.

https://www.quora.com/How-come-Bern...s-from-Wyoming-even-though-Bernie-Sanders-won

 

[dank69]

That chart looks like it includes superdelegates in the totals, which makes it a bit disingenuous when talking about how delegates were split because of voting in primaries and caucuses.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Michigan: Sanders 67, Clinton 63

That's how just about everyone reports the counts and it's why people think Bernie is getting shafted. The supers are of course free to change their minds at the convention.