He basically said that he wants to overturn the will of the voters

In other words ... winning the contest.

delegate; in the Dem primaries, a candidate can win a larger share of the popular vote yet still get fewer pledged delegates:

Your article is sad and was done by someone who has never read the Democratic Party Rules. Devine cannot flip delegates at the state convention. That is not how the Democratic Party rules work

Do you know any super delegates? I know a dozen or so. Good luck on flipping any of these delegates. I would love to watch a bernie bro try with any of the super delegates who I know. It would be fun to watch.

delegates. That is the way it is done. Those who have the most votes, which translates to pledged delegates win

Anything else would be literally disenfranchising the candidate and the candidate's supporters that had the most pledged delegates

After next weeks primaries, unless Bernie wins significantly, it will be over

They are stolen. Blah blah etc

said up to now about what constitutes a fair election.

It made sense and was not exactly the wack-a-doodle crap described by Camp Clinton. Go figure.

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1798074

extract more money from their followers.

They are irrelevant. Not worth the time.

When supporters can't donate anymore they stop.

I mean, it's nice you care and all but we got this and will continue until his campaign says otherwise.

Btw, I love the idea that his supporters are donating like they are.

Bernie's working hard to keep OUR issues, issues important to us, always at the forefront.

Bernie supports donation = Extration
Hillary wall street donation= Whatevs

And Bernie's campaign manager says that almost all of his victories were not democratic?

Bernie should fire the guy.

Not surprised. Not even even a little disappointed.

Typical.

That something is that Hillary is cleaning Sanders clock in pledged delegates, the popular vote AND super delegates.

Really, put your mind at ease here. There is no way in hell that Sanders can catch upon the popular vote or the pledged delegates.

So this is nothing like Gore v. Bush

Yet what YOUR candidate is advocating, though it is really very stupid and will never come to pass, is that when Hillary comes to the convention with a commanding lead in popular vote and pledged delegates, the super delegates should contravene the will of the people (you know, that We the People you guys are always referring to?) and toss their support to him. What YOUR candidate wants is a Gore v. Bush situation.

Thank goodness no one has any intention of playing along with him.

His plan will only work under GOP rules and will not work under Democratic Party rules

"We" = Democratic party.

These plans are on each state party's website. There is no way under these plans to steal a delegate. You can do that under the GOP rules which are very different from the Democratic Party Rules. Here is a link to the Texas Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan http://texasdemocraticconvention.com/convention_info/

Tad and Weaver have always been professional.

Tad, with a sick, smiling look on his face, essentially said that almost all of Bernie's victories were not democratic.

He should be fired. Unless this absurd position was Bernie's idea. And that is very difficult to believe.

.... is pure bullshit.

The needle on the Sanders hypocrisy meter just bent.

He can pretend to take the high road while achieving jack shit. All the while complaining other people are not perfect.
He should have never gone down this road after taking super pac money himself. If TARP had not been passed, we would be in a deep worldwide recession- but punitive measures are better, right? Self righteous bullshit.

The super delegates will laugh in their face if they attempt to convince them to switch from the candidate who has the pledged delegate and popular vote advantage.

Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Connecticut

This ad will destroy Sanders in Connecticut:

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

-John 15:13

It is exploitive and is deceptive about the existing law, her own positions over time, and Sanders position. There's not actually much difference between them and she's been campaigning on this issue knowing full well that she won't be able to change the law, and, frankly, I don't think it would make much difference if it were passed.

Now, if Sanders fought the same kind of campaign, he would be firing back with ads showing her waffling on various gun positions, taking money from gun companies and NRA lobbyists, and acting virtually as a sales agent for arms manufacturers during her tenure as Sec. of State, all the while raking in money both from the defense industry and the countries to whom she approved arm sales. Sanders, of course, won't do this, but it all be done in the general elections.

Sad that we couldn't have had a primary based on actual idea and positions, rather than distortions of them, but I guess that's how you win in politics.

While Hillary Clinton was fighting for the passage of the Brady Bill Senator Sanders voted against five iterations of it. He also supported the one piece of legislation the NRA deemed their number one priority: gun manufacturer immunity.

He put the desire of his rural constituency above the national good and is reaping the whirlwind, This is his burden.

death and misery in this world than Sandy Hook. Your candidate has no shame. She will never win a general election.

My favorite

Funny how you didn't say jack shit about all the innocents killed on her watch.

A dance off???

If you are so cocksure Hillary is a general election loser:

pardoned by President Sanders and released from jail.

I couldn't be less surprised.

If you really want to meet someone in the park... try match.com. I pass.

Okay.

How about a $100.00 donation to the charity of the other's choice ?

I will ignore your ad hominem attacks. I knew the character of my interlocutor from the jump, dinkytron.

on edit... why do you give a shit about what I say? To the extent that you want to challenge me to a bet or dirt eating. I don't get it. Plus I don't have a hundred dollars.

on edit... this sure ain't the old DU.

I better put you on ignore before I lose my mind and ask for your #. See ya!

haha...there will be no President Sanders. Heck if by some act of God (only way) he got the nomination, he would lose the general the second coming of Stalin-after being swiftboated by the GOP...they want him as the nominee for a reason.

A lot of green has disappeared since it was featured in the Sidney Portier movie, "Patch of Blue" in the sixties.

[link::large|

I stand with the daughter of the brave woman who threw herself between a lunatic with a gun and the children who were in her charge:

The more you know.
[link:
|

If you believe advocating for sensible gun laws is tantamount to "exploiting the deaths of children" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

The enormous image is a nice touch though. It distracts readers from the paucity of thought in your arguments.

The idea that she is some kind of gun control advocate is repugnant.

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.

IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

The U.S. is an arms merchant. It was an arms merchant prior to Hillary Clinton being Secretary Of State and is still an arms merchant.

When she was SOS, she traded arms deals for donations. A 143 percent increase in arms. She's a lord of war.

17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

Honorable Loretta Lynch
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001


You're welcome.

People can be immoral without committing a crime. Again, the idea that Hillary is a gun control advocate is repugnant.

There is a plain to see correlation that shows a quid pro quo. It's unlikely that someone with Hillary's political connections that is running for president will be investigated. Nixon was never convicted of a crime. What is irrefutable is that under her watch arm sells increased 143%.

Judging by her fierce pursuit of a $29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, a country which Human Rights Watch criticizes for violently oppressing women, it seems unlikely. According to the same International Business Times report, the Saudi deal’s success was “personal” to Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dieter-holger/hillary-clinton-is-pro-gu_b_8736298.html

his strategy is to use political maneuvering to overcome the will of the people? It's just totally contrary to what he is supposed to be about.

I heard that somewhere before.

I replayed it before posting this. Believe what you like.

That is exactly what he said.

It is disorganized and inconsistent. It is arbitrary and far from democratic.

1. Not all votes are equal. One person's vote carries greater weight than others depending on the state's delegate allocation process.

2. Caucuses are undemocratic. They are not one person one vote, they require commitment and not secret votes.

3. Super delegates are undemocratic and/or irrelevant but make up 15% of the delegates at the convention!

4. Some states primaries are open, some semi-open, some closed.

5. Some states allow same day registration, other require registration six months out.

6. Etc etc etc.

It is not a "fine" process. It is rife with error and inconsistencies. It is not based on the popular vote. It is an imperfect and shifting process to chose the nominee. It is what it is.

And that's because of his integrity- right?

Playing the rules is playing within the rules.

Not going to happen, but pretty amusing to watch.

But I do enjoy playing the process out and drawing attention to some of the absurdities.

than that from the futile exercise.

It's not like Bernie is or ever was loved by the Democratic Party. And it went both ways.

I think the DNC regretted welcoming him to the race when he did as well as he did. He has little to lose by playing it out. His supporters will stay invested and hopefully be noticed and welcomed by the party.

of thwarting the will of the people and cheating and general evilness. I guess things are different for Bernie.

She was criticized for having the supers line up early, "clearing the field." But yes, it was totally within the rules.

But not one super delegate has cast a vote in this primary. Nor do they have to.

And that includes the supers. Because Bernie will need them to win. So they are better than the popular vote.

Don't you honestly find this tack a bit stunning. Bernie's caucus victories weren't democratic? He is their candidate, for geez sake!

If Bernie is as honest and good as his supporters think, he couldn't have approved this. Could he?

Does not make sense.

That is the delegate majority and it includes the supers.

Either candidate will need the supers to win. Hillary will need them to reach 2,383 as will Bernie. Only one will. But the winner will be determined by the super delegates at the conevention.

The process is not "pure democracy" not even close. It is undemocratic for many reasons. Caucuses and super delegates are a couple.

She used them early and fairly to position herself in the race.

She will need them to secure the nomination. As would Bernie. Everyone is within the rules, as silly as the rules are.

The popular vote does not matter. Yet the popular vote is the basis of our democracy.

No way to spin Tad's view to make it less palatable. It's something that I would expect Fidel Castro to say.

The popular vote may be the basis of our general election, but it is NOT the basis of our nomination process.

It is conceivable for one candidate to secure more pledged delegates than another while the other candidate had a much higher popular vote tally. Then what? The undemocratic super delegates would decide and they would like nominate the delegate leader rather than the popular vote leader.

He said that caucuses - the bulk of Bernie's victories - are not democratic. So, who has the most votes does not matter.

Clearly stated. With a sick, smiling look on his face.

What campaign manager in their right mind would say that? Unless the only hope they have is to steal delegates at the convention?

They know they cannot get the most votes so this is the only approach they can take, which demeans their victories!

And what do you mean "stealing" votes at the convention? No one is stealing anything.

measures of legitimacy. A candidate with neither will not have a legitimate claim to make and would be seen as illegitimate and unprincipled if trying to flip superdelegates to that end.

They are either part of the process or not. They have the power to "legitimize" whomever they want.

It's stupid and undemocratic for 15% of the nominating power to go to individuals unbound to any criteria.

We know the supers won't break from the pledged delegate winner and they certainly won't break from the pledged delegate and popular vote winner. Unless something earth shattering happened. Regardless, there is value in playing the process out and hearing for a month that neither candidate has secured the nomination through pledged delegates. The super delegate's votes will be needed to secure the nomination at the convention.

directions scorn and condemnation and contempt would rain down on Sanders if he were to try that.

2000 is a very fresh wound in our psyche.

He would become public enemy #1 in the party and his own supporters would desert him.

You think Grijalva and Ellison would have his back on that?

He's not going to run third party.

And the plan is doomed to fail. I can only assume that the effort is for reasons other than securing the nomination. I can think of many which are not nefarious, including leverage for agreements and concessions.

If he takes that off the table, no leverage.

His funding mechanism is an endless spigot that could be used to benefit many Dems running.

an apparently straight face.

Clinton has used Citizens United and the grey area of the internet to skirt FEC rules coordinating with David Brock's SuperPAC. Yet, y'all say, them's the breaks! Those are the way the rules are so she is doing nothing wrong.

Clinton entered the race with her machine already tying up hundreds of Super Delegate pledges to vote for her. When challenged, y'all say, them's the breaks! Those are the way the rules are so she is doing nothing wrong.

If the Sanders campaign manages to win by playing by the rules and forcing a change, then sorry y'all don't have a leg to stand on in complaint. Them's the breaks! Those are the way the rules are so his campaign is doing nothing wrong.

that is why Bush became president without the majority in 2000

Read this and weep

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

This is what the delegate system apes by the way.

And I agree, it needs changing, but getting rid of the electoral college will require a constitutional amendment,

The american electoral system would not (and does not) meet any clean election election standards, And I consider it a joke, undemocratic, and I pretend to vote. It is also archaic, and should be reformed (and will be reformed, after a crisis that I suspect you cannot imagine, I can), becuase it will fail sooner or later. It already is actually.

this is civics 101 again, for the elector at the presidential level. that elector should vote the way you and thousands of your friends instruct him or her to do. That said, they are not pledged. Yes an Elector could vote for Mickey mouse for all I care, and if they all do, all hail to President Mouse. The College was put in place (like the Senate originally, since Senators were not directly elected but appointed, until 1917, to guard against the passions of the people. For the record the Supers, serve the same role in the Democratic Party, to guard against a populist candidate.

The same happens with the delegates at the conventions, since they ape the Electoral college. Both parties have delegates pledged to candidates on the first round of votes If you cannot achieve a nomination in the first round, they become free agents to vote for whoever is on the slate of candidates[ still running, For the Dems it would be Clinton and Sanders. This is why Sanders is not dropping, silly that this has to be explained, but hey whatever. By the third round, if neither is elected or achieves the number of necessary votes to gain nomination, this opens the floor to any party member, for republicans it would be the 4th round, (this could be the janitor for all I care) that meets the requirements under the United States Constitution and is a party member of course, but theoretically anybody present could.

There is a reason I laugh every time I hear, now both Trump and Clinton bandy about popular vote. They both know better. Or at least I hope they do. Some of the things at times politicians tell you make you go wait a damn second, and you are in the legislature? REALLY.

Weird bug...

the Katherine Harris of 2016?

That won't have lasting consequences.

the fantasy that the popular vote matters in the American system is just that, fantasy. Indirect electoral systems do not require you to have a majority of the popular vote, I do not care how many ways to Sunday you pretend they do. This is civics 101, and it used to amaze me that people did not know this basic shit.

A candidate who loses both the popular vote and pledged delegates will not have a legitimate claim to lead the party. As a moral issue.

Trying to install himself (with absolutely zero chance of success mind you) in the absence of a moral, legitimate claim to the nomination would earn him comparisons to Don Quixote, George W. Bush, and Pinochet.

I do not think the AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEM is clean or transparent. Deduce what you want from there.

And added all the issues with voter suppression and caging, even less so now. So you are barking up the wrong tree. As to your party, do whatever the hell you want... but if you want closed primaries, I do not want to pay for them. And I will start advocating for precisely that in my state.

to make it more democratic, hopefully something less traumatic than 1968.

... HRC taking "big" money ang having a super PAC is not okay, and she is disqualified because dhe particates in the system

But Sanders engaging in blatantly undemocratic behavior is okay, because the system "is what it is."

There's a word for that.... Oh yeah... Hypocrisy.

This isn't news. He can play out the rules while following them.

The simple fact is neither candidate will secure the nomination without the super delegates.

He just decides when it's okay to play the system and when it's not.

Sorry, but a blatant attempt to win the nomination despite being behind in both the pledged delegates and popular vote is pretty freaking egregious in my book.

That is a startegy I thought Bernie would never approve of.

The DNC won't want him to do it, he has every right to do it. And as doomed as it is, the argument holds together. He has a bargaining chip. He now has something of value to give in addition to his supporters and their funding.

Today he also made it known he will remain a Dem and support the nominee.