Should the superdeligates go for Sanders?

[Jaskalas]

Nothing is stopping or changing the nomination. The general election is Hillary VS Trump. Ugly as that is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nothing is stopping or changing the nomination. The general election is Hillary VS Trump. Ugly as that is.

Just think- you could have had Cruz!

At least Dems aren't concern trolling Repubs over that.

 

[soulcougher73]

It depends on what roll you want voting to have. If you want the party to put forth the best candidate to win then do away with the voting period and they can just pick someone. OR we can get rid of the delegates and let the people vote and decide regardless of that persons chance to winning. I prefer the later myself.

 

[Pens1566]

Why is this even a question? He's further away from the nomination than HRC was in '08 and I can't ever recall any movement to have her take it instead of Obama. He lost. By a lot. Get over it.

 

[blankslate]

They shouldn't.

But their influence on the election in the beginning by being for a certain candidate at the start before the primaries have barely begun should be lessened.

Good news everyone. about two-thirds of the superdelegates will have to be apportioned according to primary and caucus results in the future. It's a start at least.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...emocrats-vote-to-reform-super-delegate-system


__________________

 

[Moonbeam]

Nothing is stopping or changing the nomination. The general election is Hillary VS Trump. Ugly as that is.

Perhaps if you had read the thread and the link, you might have given some thoughts as to why or why not it would be a good idea. One of those ugly choices, as you call them, is going to lose. What if it's Hillary because of the reasoning in the OP? Nothing ever changes because humanity is asleep. What is the price or the shock that could awaken it. What is the price was ego.

 

[Ken g6]

I think if Hillary had been indicted the superdelegates should have gone for Sanders. She wasn't, so they shouldn't.

 

[Drako]

It's about time that the Democrat party got rid of the superdelegates. It's pretty clear now that it's a corrupt system.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think if Hillary had been indicted the superdelegates should have gone for Sanders. She wasn't, so they shouldn't.

Hehe, my question is, should they go to Sanders on the theory that the DNC showed bias favoring Clinton and Sanders is the only one who can win. I am asking what you think of the reasoning presented in the original link. Is the blogger correct that the DNC cheated and that will cost the progressive vote and a Trump win? Are you fine keeping things as they are with Clinton losing? If the party decided to commit suicide should it stick with it?

 

[soulcougher73]

Hehe, my question is, should they go to Sanders on the theory that the DNC showed bias favoring Clinton and Sanders is the only one who can win. I am asking what you think of the reasoning presented in the original link. Is the blogger correct that the DNC cheated and that will cost the progressive vote and a Trump win? Are you fine keeping things as they are with Clinton losing? If the party decided to commit suicide should it stick with it?

I think if the party wants to commit suicide then let them. They will be replaced next election cycle and/or the party will have to change to be more in line with actual liberal thinking.

 

[WackyDan]

Sanders lost at the polls. Why should super-delegates overrule the voters?

He lost due to the super delegates which are in lock step apparently with what ever the DNC wanted.

 

[theeedude]

He lost due to the super delegates which are in lock step apparently with what ever the DNC wanted.

No, I mean he lost with pledged delegates, the ones voters voted for. Hillary got more votes. The voters were also in lock step with what the DNC wanted.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He lost due to the super delegates which are in lock step apparently with what ever the DNC wanted.

No he had fewer votes which = fewer delegates. There is no other way to spin this.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I mean he lost with pledged delegates, the ones voters voted for. Hillary got more votes. The voters were also in lock step with what the DNC wanted.

She got more votes because the DNC conspired to keep him from getting more votes via denial that his are the issues that are central and could deliver a majority of the American people. The party elites pushed their idea of the right candidate regardless of reality. They worked to disadvantagentage the promulgation of his message. This is what progressives are feeling, cheated by the establishment elites, I think.

 

[dank69]

Why, shouldn't the fact that Hillary will lose and Sanders would win mean she should swallow her ambition to save the country? What is more important to her, her ego or the country?

Moonbeam old buddy, you can't claim a prediction of the future is a fact.

 

[Moonbeam]

No he had fewer votes which = fewer delegates. There is no other way to spin this.

Hehe, that's some bubble you live in. Sclultz isnt gone because there's no powerfully implicating spin that has drive a wedge in the party. Get real.

 

[dank69]

Ugh, I just skimmed that blog post and it is pretty bad. Trotting out Clinton's negatives while neglecting to mention Trump's negatives. Looking at how many Sanders supporters say they will vote for Clinton long before the DNC when everyone knows BOTH parties unify quite a bit behind their eventual candidates during the conventions.

 

[hal2kilo]

He lost due to the super delegates which are in lock step apparently with what ever the DNC wanted.

No he did not. Grow up. You lost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam old buddy, you can't claim a prediction of the future is a fact.

I did not make such a claim as fact, but suggested in post 6 and 13 that I considered it to be a possibility, asking others to give their own speculations, whether they agreed or what flaws or faults they found in the bloggers thinking.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hehe, that's some bubble you live in. Sclultz isnt gone because there's no powerfully implicating spin that has drive a wedge in the party. Get real.

I am being real. Hillary had more votes, enough more to get the nomination its math. I voted for Bernie but he didn't and doesn't have enough to be selected.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No he did not. Grow up. You lost.

You're being ridiculous
Sarah Silverman

 

[Moonbeam]

No he did not. Grow up. You lost.

Can you give me a technigue you think will cause people to grow up, or is your point to defeat his contention by belittling it as immature? If the latter, I would call that a childish ad hominem attack.

 

[hal2kilo]

Can you give me a technic you think wifi cause people to grow up, or is your point to defeat his contention by belittling it as immature? If the latter, I would call that a childish ad hominem attack.

Act like a child, get spoken to like a child.

Edit: Learning to accept legitimate defeat is what grown-ups do.

 

[dank69]

I did not make such a claim as fact, but suggested in post 6 and 13 that I considered it to be a possibility, asking others to give their own speculations, whether they agreed or what flaws or faults they found in the bloggers thinking.

I don't know how to respond to this other than I literally quoted you literally writing it is a fact that Hillary will lose. If you meant something else, can you explain it to me?

 

[Moonbeam]

Act like a child, get spoken to like a child.

Edit: Learning to accept legitimate defeat is what grown-ups do.

So you have no way to enable others to submit to your personal vision of what is legitimate so you offer the further unsubstantiated claim that they thus deserve to be treated like children. Did you know that such thinking is more typical of conservatives meaning that it is also present in liberals.