See: Math

The only ones making a stink about Super Delegates are the straw graspers.

We need to get the corruption of Big Money out of our government.

Hillary doesn't run the DNC, but she will be head of our party starting in January.

Make a suggestion then.

No matter what mess the Repibs are in, there is one thing above all others that appears to unite them.

A raw hatred of the Clintons.

Two Clintons in power will make their heads explode.

Have you listened to talk radio, checked out repub message boards, or even general coo nets on articles about the election from various news sites?

They are ecstatic at the thought of Hillary winning the primary. The can't wait to vote agaisnt her.

Any for anyone that just reads DU comments that think the Bernies will vote gor her...

Wrong again, most on DU won't say that, it could result in a ban.

For the general public that comments on other sites, like articles on Facebook, Bernies fb page and general comment like on huff post and cnn.....id say it's about 1 out of 10 Bernies that say they will vote for her.

I think you under estimate as well, how many average folks distrust and do not like the Clintons.

It's my opinion her supporters on DU might be a bit isolated.

more than Sanders and ahead in delegates and super delegates.
How is that isolated?
She is not a fringe candidate.
She is the front runner.

Most votes does not by any means confirm the best candidate.

Have they ever contradicted the pledged delegate total?

No. Since they were established beginning in the 1984 presidential cycle as a way to give party leaders more say in the process, superdelegates have never changed the outcome of the primary season. "The superdelgates are politicians, and politicians generally try to agree with voters and follow the will of the voters," said Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution, who was on the 1980s commission creating the superdelegates. But Kamarck - who happens to be a superdelegate supporting Clinton - says they view that voter will with more of a national than state-by-state focus.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/how-do-superdelegates-work-here-s-what-you-need-know-n554136

Yup. Should Sanders overtake HRC I wonder how many have the balls to overturn the nation's desire to see positive change.

the Establishment candidate is by itself an influence on voters. And if it's true that Super-Delegates have yet to vote against the people's choice, why have them. The purpose as stated in you quote is "to give party leaders more say in the process." That's not democratic. The hell with the "Party Leaders".

They started it rigged, refused to change, when ever someone complained they would say will we have not voted yet, it does not count yet, we will support the winner, but then they still stay pledged and let the press run with the narrative.

We have GOT to stop the incestuous relationship with what used to be the news industry, but has been managed as the entertainment and ratings industry.

THAT'S SICK, and it's a double whammy that the press is given a cookie and runs with it like little delivery boys and girls.

Mad as hell about that, too.

They want to be on the winning team.
That was the problem with all of those Super Delegates saying they backed Hillary before the first vote was even cast in this primary.

Perception is reality.

Nevertheless, Hillary's campaign is almost a mirror-image of Bernie's campaign . . where he is on the left on all of the issues, she is on the right of nearly all of those issues.

Since the Super Delegates view the race from a national viewpoint, rather than from a state viewpoint, I have no doubt that they will shift their support to Bernie at the convention.
And he is going to the convention.
You can count on that.

The people are speaking and Clinton is their choice on the democrats side.

Clinton is winning because more people voted for her. I know Sandernistas don't like to hear that, but there ya go.

you can't ignore those among us struggling. Your support of the statu quo guarantees that the numbers of lost jobs, numbers in poverty will continue to increase. I know you don't think Goldman-Sachs gives a crap about those struggling.

But those of you who think Bernie is going to be your savior are fooling yourselves. Bernie's plans are simply not going to be estimated...

But.... that's the crux of our argument, really. I think Bernie fans are dazzled by unrealistic promises.

a President that is beholden to the Wealthy will insist that they, the Wealthy pay their fair share. If you've noticed Clinton doesnt even campaign on making the Wealthy pay their fair share. All of her plans require the 99% to help those among us that are struggling. She is a part of the Wealthy 1% (in fact her and Bill are in the more exclusive 0.1% club) and she has amassed her wealth from gifts from those that expect quid pro quo.

No one expects miracles from a Sanders' presidency. Electing him is just a start. I hope that he might at least stop the bleeding. Clinton won't help the health care problem, the continuous war problem, the NSA/CIA domestic spying problem, the fracking for oil profits problem, the Prison For Profits problem, the Social Security problem. I can't see how 4 years of Clinton won't see less jobs, less college students, less safety nets, etc. She favors Goldman-Sachs and that's what she told them in her speeches.

Bernie's fans are fighting the corrupt culture of Big Money in government that you apparently revere.

n/t

If you repeat a lie often enough you are a Republican.

He's behind by around 213 delegates, not 250.

Stinks to high heaven.

I wonder what his more recent articles are saying?

We must smash the Clinton machine: Democratic elites and the media sold out to Hillary this time, but change is coming

It is the only explanation for the near constant MSM attacks on Sanders. They always happen when he is posing a threat.

Oh she sees it alright, but her response isn't all that credible.

I'll play tit-for-tat with you

Let me look into this ...

You should delete this

Thanks, that was fucked up, I feel dirty now.

I felt a little sick to my stomach when I realized...

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The only reason someone picks now to be on the dark horse candidate is extreme sour grapes.

just started being vetted a month ago. His true colors are being shown. And if he ever releases his taxes no telling what we'll see.

Why is he going to Rome when he "doesn't have time to do his taxes"??????? Stinks to high heaven.

OH MY GOT THAT'S FUNNY!

Panama Papers.

And speaking of releasing, when will Clinton-Sachs release her transcripts? Although Anonymus leaked them. Really not exciting.
Simply, "I Hillary Rodham C. will never support any legislation that would regulate or otherwise bring displeasure to my good friends, the bankers. Please make my check out to Clinton Cash Fund, and have my car brought around."

To the naughty list with you.

10 months ago that statement was made. If that was true Sanders would have a very commanding lead.

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Liberals don't support:

The corruption of Big Money in government via Citizens United.
Job killing "Free Trade" agreements
Fracking for oil company profits over people's water quality.
Unregulated domestic spying and no oversight for the NSA/CIA Security State.
Drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)
Prisons for Profits
American Exceptionalism as an excuse for neocon imperialism.
The use of cluster bombs near civilian areas.

Liberals do support:

Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
Helping college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it).
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
The end of the militarization of our local police forces.
The legalization of marijuana especially for medical use. Denying medical marijuana to those that are suffering is cruel.

And how I would characterize the poster's commentary.

Sort of like being a Dennis Kucinich, or Rand Paul.

that honest Democrats are fighting. Those that revere wealth over humans are not liberals and not Democrats.

when he has trouble working with others?

Yes, Hillary will 'work with Republicans'. She'll do it to pass pro-Wall Street/anti-labor/pro-war legislation.

Hooray?

when she was a Senator, and that is ALL that she did. (besides voting on the wrong side on major issues)

Bernie worked with John McCain (and that would be "across the isle&quot to pass a very important major VA bill for Veterans. And McCain complemented him for it.

Not quite as earth shaking as renaming a post office, but you have to do what little you can.

parties?

.

and claiming he might win ONE state.
My, how times have changed, and at that rate of change....well you should be smart enough to figure that out.

The Clinton Establishment was WAY WRONG 10 months ago,
and now they are STILL wrong, but at least smart enough to panic.

the governor's race in Connecticut in 1994 to John Rowland. Curry left after the 1996 reelection of Bill Clinton, not a particularly good indication of a valued adviser. Curry ran against Rowland again in 2002 and lost by 12 points, even though Rowland was involved up to his neck in a contract bidding scandal which caused him to resign in 2004 and landed him in Federal prison. Not sure we should put a lot of stock in Curry's national political bona fides based on 2 years in the Bill Clinton administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Curry_%28politician%29

Believe me, Bill Curry has written a LOT dumber stuff for Salon since then.

...if he wins NY by a landslide - say 80% to 20%. Wisconsin and Wyoming were losses, in reality; he needed huge margins in those states and did not get them.

and it being exposed will help crash the Democratic party.


Both parties have forgotten that they were about their voters, not their special interests.


Good riddance.

..but this has been the way they do it for years and people tend to forget - until the next election. I has, over the years become more Democratic. Each state has different rules, too, which is a sure sign of inequality. Decades ago, the party elders always picked the nominees at the conventions.

Wyoming only has 14 delegates, each one is worth a certain percentage. Sanders would have to have hit I believe 58% in order to hit the next "tier" and get that 8th delegate.

Math isn't corruption, kids.

That sounds more like your side.


gawd, hillarians are insufferable

That means that Sanders will get from 8 to 12 delegates.

Unfortunately, most state election laws compel the delegate to vote for the person who actually won.

You aren't going to win an election by theft, bro.

I mean if there is a check of the physical person at the primary why not the mailed in forms?

But i get you and your supporters.

And I saw first hand at my caucus when the lead ( a h supporter) whispered to the secretary (a h supporter) that one of the h supporters flipped. We were watching...and as we should have. That one flip changed the delegate count.

Scummy and slimy and dirty tricks have been playing out and I really think this is also the death knell for the Democratic Party.

--at that level. WY will turn out like NV and MO.

Camp Sanders is pretty poor with election fine print.

Clinton won 36 of Missouri's pledged delegates, Sanders won 35. Once we'r at the convention, 36 will cast their vote for Hillary, 35 for Sanders (if he is still in it by then).

On March 15, Hillary Clinton narrowly won the Missouri primary with 49.6% of the vote, compared to Bernie Sanders’ 49.4% share of the vote. Since delegates are allocated proportionally, it was projected that Hillary Clinton would win 36 of the 71 pledged delegates, and Sanders would walk away with the other 35 delegates.

But the delegate selection process is not that simple. The voters in the primary do not directly elect the 71 national convention delegates as one might think. Instead, delegates from each candidate who are selected proportionally attend Mass Meetings on April 7 at the different wards, townships and counties across the state. The purpose of these meetings is to select District-Level delegates who would later elect the 71 pledged delegates to represent the candidates in the Democratic National Convention.

This process made sense more than half a century ago when communications were limited and technology nonexistent.

However, just like in Nevada, many Hillary Clinton delegates didn’t show up to these meetings and Bernie Sanders was able to snatch more District-Level delegates than what he was supposed to have. Reported delegate allocation by the Missouri Democratic Party shows that 681 delegates (51.4%) were allocated to Bernie Sanders and 644 delegates (48.6%) allocated for Hillary Clinton.

http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/

Sanders is not getting any more delegates than what he earned by the popular vote. There's nothing else to the story, bro.

There is no possibility of Sanders earning more delegate votes tan he won from the election.

It's ending and people are leaving.

Then again, I see that this is dated June 22, 2015.

How is it relevant today?

Both IMO.

So that said, she's not alone!

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/12/05/they-havent-been-wrong-our-next-president-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

A lot has happened since last December.

People are pissed and he sounded ticked about fracking today, naming names like Chevron and Halliburton.

just because it predicts a Sanders victory??!

Post after post that are not reality based. It's embarrassing how disconnected some people are from what is happening in this election. One thing is to be enthusiastic and hope that one's preferred candidate wins. Another thing totally different is to seem to live in an alternate world where Sanders is ahead, and like some OP stated, "Clinton's campaign is collapsing".

... how few POC would vote for an old Jewish white guy who spent much of his adult life fighting for their interests.

those are ideas. How this is actually playing out is more brutally simple than voter perception mood or even fervor. Simply the organization is churning out the Made Deal like sausage based on past loyalties, favors, fear of all sorts, reacting against the "Revolution" like French aristocrats. I know the complaints about rigging and fraud, but compared to the GOP they are still laughably childlike. In fact the whole power play aspect to substitute both for platform AND charisma is totally embarrassing.

Still, his point could be real if only the media would let the people get a fair picture of Sanders, the alternative. it seems without Sanders there was already a seeming slide away when Biden seemed even a misty distant option. As it is I make the same points which might look smart if we win or you can blame the people being outsmarted, asleep, etc.

The problem though extends to the fall and beyond, something way way beyond magical delegate counts and primary power plays. That actually is another issue, one the party is falling on its sword not to address- as with many other crying to heaven issues.

Or what the Hillary supporters refer to as "personal, sexist attacks."
But simple facts and reasoning are refreshing to the mind.
Thanks

Politics and government".