Perfect, Iamaartist! LOL!

I think I got some Bernie people on my Rec's oh well

The candidate currently leading the superdelegate count ALSO has more popular votes than any other candidate out there, on either side of the ballot.

If our whole primary race was winner take all...

Clinton: 1647
Sanders: 732

Losing with Super Ds, losing without. This primary system is working as it was designed.

most SDs ARE supporting the candidate who has indeed received the most votes! Exactly what is undemocratic about that?

Aside from that

hold my breath.

Interesting and understandable that HRC and her supporters would support this and it's connotation, but why the 'joke'? Doesn't that make you become the very thing you chastise the other candidate and his supporters about?

http://origins.osu.edu/history-news/superdelegates-obstacle-road-democratic-elections

"After the 1968 convention in Chicago highlighted the problems inherent in the Democrats’ tradition of nomination by party bosses, the Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic.

It was during that experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders. High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later. The Republican party, by the way, has no superdelegates."

So party boss - protests in '68' pushed to more democratic - then party bosses didn't like democratic process went to superdelegate to bring back party boss aspect

and HRC and her supporters are highlighting and supporting this 'party boss' aspect over the more democratic process? Gloating over the SD before the primaries are over will come back to bite ya if things don't go the way you expect them to based upon trends currently

Clinton already has the most delegates not counting the supers. Unlikely Sanders catches up.

the reason(s) for the creation of SD system is the point, the cartoons are only making the statement that SD are 'embraced' to prevent "Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic....experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders....High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later"

So...

Democratic or party bosses that's the tale as proven out by history, so what exactly is the SD system telling you this election cycle?

They 'pledged' before the are supposed to vote, so why would they 'pledge' before a single primary vote is cast?

Once they 'pledge' they aren't allowed to change?

Which do you support? the people or party bosses?

I find it odd that these cartoons portray embracing the SD over the people... and that HRC and her supporters are promoting that point

who matters more in this nation? people or party bosses?

Ever been to a union convention? Do you know where the primary system started?

Do you really believe that a convention is a democratic process? Working within the unit is what counts.

I do know how the primary system started...

but here's a good primer breaking it down...

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/23/471563611/the-mind-boggling-story-of-our-arcane-and-convoluted-primary-politics

"GROSS: Why was 1968 a turning point in the Democratic approach to primary politics?

KAMARCK: In 1968, the Democratic Party was the site of a significant anti-war movement. That movement coincided with the women's movement, with civil rights movements, with a feeling that American politics needed to be more inclusive. And the anti-war protesters found that they could not win delegates to the '68 convention. Even when their candidates - in that case, Gene McCarthy - were doing fairly well, they were cut out of the convention and cut out of delegate slots because the process for electing delegates did not depend on primaries. It wasn't a very open process. And so the significant anti-war movement was really cut out of the '68 convention and, as we saw, they were in the streets rioting during the '68 convention. After that, the party said, all right, we have to do something about this, we have to open up a little bit more than we've been. And they created something called the McGovern-Fraser Commission, and the rules from that commission fundamentally reshaped the nominating system not just for the Democrats but for the Republicans as well.

GROSS: What are a delegate's responsibilities and what is their loyalty to the voter who elected them? And what is their loyalty to, like, their own conscience and what they think they should do once they get to the convention?

KAMARCK: Ninety-nine percent of the time, the delegates simply go to the convention and they vote for whoever they were supposed to vote for according to the results of the state. There are, however, exceptions. You could have a candidate incapacitated between the end of the primaries and the convention. You could have a candidate that you find out something unusual about, something that maybe doesn't make them as strong a candidate as you the voter thought they were back in the winter when you voted for them. There's all sorts of things that could happen, but it is not a decision that the delegates would take lightly, you know? They'd have to really - to leave the presidential candidate they voted for, they'd have to have a good reason and be able to go home and say to the voters in their state, I had a good reason for changing my vote."

back to my point...

"Dems experimented briefly with making the process more democratic....experiment, in 1976, that Washington outsider Jimmy Carter won the nomination against the wishes of many Democratic party leaders....High-ranking Democrats were determined to never again have to sit back and look on helplessly as a candidate outside the control of the established political machinery became their party’s duly elected candidate. So superdelegates were introduced in 1982 and implemented two years later"

What these debates and primaries are highlighting, very vividly, is the disconnect between party and people...

What these cartoons depict are a clear statement that party over people matters more...

so, which is it? people or party?

The party is the people who get out and do the work. What you put into cartoons is what you bring.

to your point "people who get out and do the work", for the party not the people

so why the debates? just for show?

my take, the party is afraid of the people, if the PARTY doesn't nominate a candidate of the people they will lose

you can't FORCE a candidate on the people and expect to win, this is a fact

"Political parties are voluntary organizations under the Constitution, and they're covered by the First Amendment's freedom of association. No one forces you to register as a Democrat or a Republican. You can vote in the general election as an independent. You can join the Constitution Party or the Green Party. In other words, political parties are a kind of funny entity. They are neither fish nor fowl. They're somewhat public because we have primaries, and in some states, the state government funds the primaries. On the other hand, ultimately, political parties, according to the Supreme Court, are basically semipublic or even private organizations and they can nominate their candidates as they please. And the only real intervention the Supreme Court has made in this is to say you can't violate somebody's civil rights in the process. But in terms of making up your own rules of how you do things, the courts have given political parties pretty much free range. So this is controlled by parties, not by law."

what you are sidestepping is the fact that this current primary cycle is trying to do just that... it's why SD's 'pledged' before a single primary vote was cast. to tilt the scales, to try to force optics upon the public to 'direct' their voting preferences to that 'party boss' preferred candidate

It is not. The primaries and caucuses are where the Democratic Party chooses its nominee. The General Election is where the country elects its President. The two are not the same.

The idea that the superdelegates saying who they will vote for is tilting the scales is idiotic. They are no more tilting the scales than the 2.4 million people more who voted for Hillary. Should we mandate that all candidates for the nomination receive equal number of votes, lest having more votes tip the scales? Should we make it illegal to say who you will be voting for, lest the people around you be influenced by your decision? Plenty of us said we would vote for Hillary and Bernie well before the primaries actually started. That people would want to hear the opinion of people who actually work with the two candidates, and see who they support is smart, not tilting the scales. You would assume that people that have worked with them (both of them!) on issues would have a better idea of who would be more suited to be President, and I, for one, appreciate their input.

I'm sorry you're aggrieved that more than 80% of the people elected or working for the Democratic party at federal or state level think that Hillary will make a better President than Bernie. Most of them have had a chance to work with her as she rose through the ranks of the party, since she's been a member for nigh on 40 years. More than half the superdelegates in the House who support Bernie were elected after he joined the Senate, and haven't had the chance to work with him as a peer. Most of the others don't support him. If many of them don't want to support a guy whose peers they were or are, that is a clue, you know.

the primary elections and general elections. Makes you wonder if they've ever been Democrats, doesn't it?

for understanding that you have the whole rest of the board but we reserve this for her supporters.

I don't go into the BS group as a Hillary supporter.. I would be blocked in a second. As it is I was out and no other hosts were around so you got to go on and on about nothing.

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I was just about to say that there is a lot of them in my rec list oh well for them

HumanityExperiment ignore list.......

I've already Blocked him.