Tulsi Gabbard says she was warned against breaking from Clinton

[lopri]

Crowned by who? Debbi W. Schultz? Clinton has won majority of primaries and caucuses so far. (actually more votes than any other candidate including the Pubs) Do those votes not count?

 

[Blanky]

Crowned by who? Debbi W. Schultz? Clinton won majority of primaries and caucuses. (actually more votes than any other candidate including the Pubs) Do those votes not count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Shillary had 20% the delegates she needed before the voting even began.

 

[lopri]

I do not understand how that thought process works. Clinton wins majority of votes cast, that means she was crowned even before the voting began. The Duck wins mere plurality of votes within the party and he is the clear will of the voters? 😕

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Shillary had 20% the delegates she needed before the voting even began.

Oh everyone knows that means nothing. Just look at the GOP where there is no superdelegates and tell me how wonderfully their democratic process is working out.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh everyone knows that means nothing. Just look at the GOP where there is no superdelegates and tell me how wonderfully their democratic process is working out.

Superdelegates effectively disenfranchise Democratic voters and you're criticizing the GOP for their democratic process? Wow. That's rich.

 

[Blanky]

I do not understand how that thought process works.

Clearly. Simply put, hillary had the overwhelming support of her party months ago before any subjects/peasants such as yourself or I could ever get to the ballot box. We've been told repeatedly she is the person, the super delegates have already overwhelmingly committed to her. SDs put in place to ensure petulant and non-compliant upstarts like Sanders have a monumental task to getting nominated. All the votes are behind her, all the big money is behind her. She is a corporate slave, an owned piece of property paid massive sums by lobbyists to further their desires.

Your argument about republicans is salient but not as you intended. The democratic process is working as it should: the establishment is telling the people F this guy, the people are saying, no F you instead. And that guy is ahead. It's beautiful. I'm not even endorsing Trump with this statement, but it's beautiful seeing a guy hated by the plutocrats overpower them with the support of the people.

 

[lopri]

You still have no answer to the votes *cast by voters* Clinton has earned. Are they illegitimate?

 

[Blanky]

You still have no answer to the votes *cast by voters* Clinton has earned. Are they illegitimate?

No. She is marginally ahead in votes actually cast by the people. But in votes she actually has--the ones crowned to her by her princes and princesses--she is wildly ahead of him.

 

[lopri]

Well then we shall see who wins in the end.

 

[nageov3t]

No. She is marginally ahead in votes actually cast by the people. But in votes she actually has--the ones crowned to her by her princes and princesses--she is wildly ahead of him.

"marginally ahead," also known as a larger pledged delegate lead than any candidate has ever been able to overcome.

 

[Blanky]

Well then we shall see who wins in the end.

We both know it will be Hillary.

"marginally ahead," also known as a larger pledged delegate lead than any candidate has ever been able to overcome.

She has 772 to Sanders' 549. It's hardly an obliteration.

 

[BoberFett]

I hope Sanders takes his campaign all the way through every of the 50 state primaries. I'd be very disappointed if he gave up early just because Hillary was ahead. Let every vote count.

 

[lopri]

We both know it will be Hillary.

Oh, I do not arrogate fortune-telling to myself. However I strongly believe whoever wins the majority of the votes will win, not because of superdelegates.

I hope Sanders takes his campaign all the way through every of the 50 state primaries. I'd be very disappointed if he gave up early just because Hillary was ahead. Let every vote count.

Agreed.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I hope Sanders takes his campaign all the way through every of the 50 state primaries. I'd be very disappointed if he gave up early just because Hillary was ahead. Let every vote count.

Well, Sanders did promise as much. Not sure if it'll matter in the end. On the bright side supposedly almost all of the southern states where Hillary had advantage has had primaries already, so there is hope that from now on Bernie will be closing the delegate gap on Hillary. However, it is still unknown if he'll be able to overtake Hillary in the end. One can always hope.

 

[nageov3t]

She has 772 to Sanders' 549. It's hardly an obliteration.

considering that delegates are all awarded proportionally, it's a huge lead. twice as big as the lead that Obama ever had over Hillary, for example.

it's not like the Republican race where, thanks to winner-take-all states, a single win can completely change your standings in the race. for Sanders to overcome Hillary, he needs blowout wins in pretty much every small state going forward, and small wins in every big state.

 

[zinfamous]

We both know it will be Hillary.


She has 772 to Sanders' 549. It's hardly an obliteration.

Oh but it is an obliteration my friend, it is. You make good points in the comparisons to the Dem vs Repub primary model, but I lose you when you claim that the fix was in from the beginning.

If Clinton didn't have more votes and more delegates, then this would be an issue, but it really isn't. Crying about the existence of super delegates as a potential trump card is a waste of time until that actually appears to be case. As it stands, it is not a factor and very likely never will be in this race. The long assumption is that they will fall in line with the popular vote, because that is what they always do. They aren't yet in play, but she has the vote numbers and the delegates anyway, so it's really pointless until Sanders somehow overtakes her in those categories.

I understand that the model doesn't pass the smell test--it really doesn't--but let's wait until it bucks history and "steals an election" before it actually does that.

 

[Brian Stirling]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2465665

Not very good at Math are ya?

Anyway, that's the primary balance -- we'll see how things shake out after the conventions. Say for example Trump and Hillary get the nomination, which most people think is how things will work out, how would you put the balance of billionaires at that point? My guess is Hillary will out billionaire Trump 5:1.


Brian

 

[soundforbjt]

Not very good at Math are ya?

Anyway, that's the primary balance -- we'll see how things shake out after the conventions. Say for example Trump and Hillary get the nomination, which most people think is how things will work out, how would you put the balance of billionaires at that point? My guess is Hillary will out billionaire Trump 5:1.


Brian

Are you forgetting about "outside" interests?

 

[Brian Stirling]

Superdelegates effectively disenfranchise Democratic voters and you're criticizing the GOP for their democratic process? Wow. That's rich.

And the way the media has been listing the delegate totals and including the super-delegates that have not yet cast there vote to make Hillary appear to be the prohibitive favorite is despicable. They know they've been called on this but continue to do it anyway.


Brian

 

[chucky2]

I think what Blanky is saying is that because of SD declaring for Billary early, it skews how the Dems will vote in the primary. People want to vote for 'the winner' or the 'most popular' or 'the party pick', etc. So in coming out for Billary early, the Dem party skews the support Billary is getting from the get-go.

At least that's how I took Blanky posts...

 

[Sonikku]

So it's OK when your side does it.

Remind me again, why are Democrats better than Republicans? I get told all the time around here that there is a difference, but fr the life of me I can't remember what it is...

Republicans promise to shrink government, but expand it instead. Democrats expand government too, but... never promised to do any less? :hmm:

 

[Fern]

Crowned by who? Debbi W. Schultz? Clinton has won majority of primaries and caucuses so far. (actually more votes than any other candidate including the Pubs) Do those votes not count?

I guess crowned by the establishment and media. If you recall, there were even concerns about her having any primary opponents. Virtually everyone assumed the nomination was hers for the taking and seemed no one wanted to run against her. She ended up with 2 opponents and there were, what, 17 candidates on the repub side.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Republicans promise to shrink government, but expand it instead. Democrats expand government too, but... never promised to do any less? :hmm:

And that's why I don't like Republicans. Their small government rhetoric isn't even lip service, it's a flat out lie. They love big government, they just want it funneling to their friends instead of to the Democrats' friends. That still doesn't make Democrats good. It's a con job either way, which is why I've voted almost exclusively third party since I was able to vote.

 

[werepossum]

So it's OK when your side does it.

Remind me again, why are Democrats better than Republicans? I get told all the time around here that there is a difference, but fr the life of me I can't remember what it is...

They must be better, otherwise they wouldn't come first in the dictionary.

 

[werepossum]

And that's why I don't like Republicans. Their small government rhetoric isn't even lip service, it's a flat out lie. They love big government, they just want it funneling to their friends instead of to the Democrats' friends. That still doesn't make Democrats good. It's a con job either way, which is why I've voted almost exclusively third party since I was able to vote.

Well said.

We can find one party better according to our own priorities and superficially they certainly look different, but looking at both at once, we see they are two sides of the same coin.

 

[lopri]

I guess crowned by the establishment and media. If you recall, there were even concerns about her having any primary opponents. Virtually everyone assumed the nomination was hers for the taking and seemed no one wanted to run against her. She ended up with 2 opponents and there were, what, 17 candidates on the repub side.

Fern

But the establishment and the media cannot "crown" her as we know. She needs votes just like any other candidate. And I would argue that the media had a much bigger hand in The Duck's ascent than anything Clinton-related.

I may have been unclear with the comment I made about the GOP's primary. When I said "look at the GOP's primary," I was not comparing the parties' different delegate systems and making a judgment as to which system is more democratic. I assumed those rules, which existed before this election cycle, as given and further assumed everyone knew about them before the primaries began.

What I meant to say was that, observing how the Republican leadership was trying to skew the race, things like that can happen regardless of Superdelegates. Some in the GOP leadership as well as the campaigns are openly talking about brokered conventions or whatnot - I do not remember anything like that from the Democratic party leadership in past elections, even in an extremely tight race like the one they had in 2008. Folks may remember the nastiness and brutality of the competition between Obama and Clinton. Did Superdelegates play any significant role? Not really. The same has been true and will remain true this year, by all indications.

So bringing forth the superdelegates as if they were proof of unfair play is not a persuasive argument because the reality just does not bear that out. Neither is an argument that voters are disenfranchised by the superdelegates' presence. If what many say about the "Establishment" this year is true, the fact that the Establishment is backing Clinton should be a negative for Clinton campaign, not a positive, meaning she might have lost more votes.