Literally.

So "they" means "numerous".

How many, exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numerous

isn't hard to find. They are all over the board.

Because I read threw first two title of threads on here and could not find them. Or are you talking about some other part of the website? From my short time looking around I thought this was only place for discussion on the primaries.

As if the number of counties somehow mattered more than the number of individual votes.

Sanders won more acreage, so he should be the nominee.

They thought presenting it as an acreage argument over that of a land owner argument would make them look less......

There is no difference in the two arguments.

Maybe you would like to show how the land owner/acreage argument isn't based in what I am implying.

I know it isn't your thing so you won't. That argument isn't who you are.

if any Sanders supporters directly says land ownership should be a prerequisite for voting, then I will criticize that.

Otherwise, I'd suggest...

I'm sorry you felt the need for you last line and the image. Take care Armstead. I have no need for that and you are one of my favorite posters.

Camp Weathervane's desperation (and lack of character) are seemingly boundless.

Okay ... here you go!

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally

Nice.

I was actually agreeing with you.

It's not a purely democratic process. The rules are what they are.

those should go. But we hear endlessly from Sanders supporters that raising money under the current system is de facto corrupt and that following corrupt rules is, in and of itself corrupting. So if that is true, isn't following undemocratic ones, in and of itself, undemocratic?

It used to be entirely undemocratic. It has ebbed and flowed in that regard. Recently, it has tended in the wrong direction.

There really should not be an expectation of adherence to a democratic process when the system is not designed as such and has never purported to be. All votes are unequal across states. Delegates are allocated in a variety of ways. States hold votes under varying schemes. And 15 per cent of the voting power rests with unfettered super delegates, who get to vote once as a normal person then again as a weighted super power.

You should run your calculations on the 714 supers and how many people they represent.

Though I do question some of those votes if they were made on a voting machine in Chicago.

Trying to make things racist? Failing.

means Bernie wins. They know they are right, they know they are the majority. The vote is just supposed to be a confirmation of their superiority.

To committed revolutionaries niceties like respecting the will of the voters are just more bourgeoisie claptrap. They know better.

It isn't over. It's like calling a baseball game in the 7th inning because one team is ahead.

Bernie may lose....It's possible he may not.

Why the hell don't you want to ust let the damn game play out?

I have a huge problem with saying super delegates should vote for the loser because reasons.

What protocol do you suggest super delegates use to vote?

Right now they vote based on 'reasons' .. at this point those reasons are the ones Hillary laid out ... Sanders can lay out his own and the Supers can decide which 'reasons' make the most sense to them.

I don't see the problem.

or no one at all. The only exception I would give is a split in popular vote and delegates.

They can only vote for the person who won .. which is undetermined at this time, and once they 'won' they are no longer needed to vote for the person who has already won.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree that the super delegates are not needed and should be ignored, but that should have started at the beginning of the primaries, not AFTER they were used to give Hillary an advantage.

In 2008 Hillary conceded to our President to be and even nominated him at the convention. It is over, baseball games have nothing to do with elections, one lucky hit will not win the nomination.
If Bernie is actually a Democrat, he will stop his attacks on both the DNC and on our presumptive nominee. He is deliberately hurting the party that he claims to be part of, and helping the Republicans.

Your vote, your choice. I'm just happy that people vote.

I'm not a conservative so I don't support her as my first choice, I hated Reagan very much and those who think he was an activist hero of the AIDS era need to educate themselves prior to seeking office.

favor Mondale. I got my ass kicked daily for doing so. so you can stick it somewhere. I was a liberal in a hard place to be a liberal. It is easy to be one in the Northwest. Thanks to people like me it is easier to be both gay and liberal where I came from. I took the lumps.

and in London. I came to the NW as a semi retired middle aged man, dsc. I was on the most front of all possible front lines, all over the world. So lecturing me about how easy it is to be me is really not acceptable. You make massive assumptions that are inaccurate. Much like your candidate when she claims Reagan was an OG AIDS activist. That belief, I can't cotton to that. You do as you wish, but do not expect to be lauded for it.

Being a liberal, that is...

Stay classy!

On Tue May 3, 2016, 09:48 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Apparently in the minds of Sanders and his supporters a Clinton voter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511888617

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This op is ridiculous

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 3, 2016, 09:54 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Complete shite meant to stir up more shite.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We all have our opinions
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: While this post is ridiculous, that is not the reason I am hiding it. I am voting to hide for the racist undertones. "That is an improvement over the 3/5 many of them were once considered" I was going to leave it, because being ridiculous is allowed, until that caught my eye. dsc, I've known you a long time, and you are much better than that. Don't let the primaries make you say things you'll regret. Signed, a friend and a Bernie supporter.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe ridiculous but not worthy of being alerted on which is even more ridiculous.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

The OP is offensive.

I think the jury comments needed to be seen.

And you with your bragging about how civil you are. Quite the joke.

Some states (such as my own state of Iowa) don't even have a "popular vote" number, and in any case, nobody has been trying to maximize it, so it is a metric pretty much without meaning. (Adding numbers from different states with different turnout rates is adding apples and oranges. The units aren't the same.)

Both candidates have worked hard to maximize their pledged delegate count, which may or may not be fair, but most certainly is the number that candidates have been trying to maximize.

Folks can dream about the supers (and I've seen them added in with the pledged delegates here on DU from time to time in order to distort the actual numbers and create enthusiasm), but once they wake up, they'll find the supers going with the pledged delegates.

Given that there is an odd number of pledged delegates, and that O'Malley didn't manage to snag one for himself, the convention could be contested right up the conclusion of the first round of voting, but the outcome will be known beforehand. (Whether this actually counts as a "contested convention" is a matter of semantics, I suppose.)

Hillary is likely to win because of the pledged delegates. Other numbers are irrelevant.

If, by some miracle, Bernie comes out on top in pledged delegates, then the nomination is his.

nice try, though

You are not helping your candidate by posting shit like this.

buh bye.

What if we have the loser of a war be the ones to dictate the terms! Why, not only would big, powerful countries be shy about entering into a war, they'd be in a real hurry to surrender. Of course, we're going to have to have some advisers as smart as the BSers to show us how we enforce this rule.

the votes were tallied correctly. Voter fraud is rampant in this election. MO

So there is that.

always the victim. Didn't mean to interrupt the coronation.

but I don't think they will learn anytime in the next decade or two what they are doing wrong.