'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[baldgriff]

So Bernie is winning more states and conceivably many of the remaining states are no real lock for HRC. So why is it that we dont hear the Bernie is gaining steam.

No discussion of him winning 3 of 4 last weekend?

[Mithrandir]

Why is it so fucking confusing to your everyday person (like me). Why can't it just be that the nomination goes to the person with the most votes?

Super delegates my ass.

[Erik]

So Bernie is winning more states and conceivably many of the remaining states are no real lock for HRC. So why is it that we dont hear the Bernie is gaining steam.

No discussion of him winning 3 of 4 last weekend?

There's plenty of discussion about it if you know where to look. But it doesn't get the kind of ratings for the mainstream media like the GOP shitstorm does.

[Lucky]

Just to inject a couple of things which might be helpful to the conversation. As far as basing the nomination upon who gets the most votes, what we are talking about is a Democratic primary, held by the Democratic Party, which is permitted by law to have its own rules. They can caucus or have a primary, they can split the votes how they want. It has been that way, so far as I remember, forever. The superdelegates where thought to add some stability to the process, following the 1968 disaster in Chicago.

As for being biased against Bernie, the DNC is the Democratic National Committee. Is it hard to understand why they would be hopeful that a Democrat would win the nomination? Bernie, as fine a fellow as he may be, is not a Democrat.

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 80s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries. The media tends to count them in with whomever they express support for. Is it unreasonable for them to openly express support, at this point, for the only Democrat in the race? They will do whatever they will do at the Convention if it gets that far, but their votes won't count unless it gets that far, at least as I understand the process. So why piss off your party needlessly? Bernie isn't a party guy, has no influence in the party, and won't be able to help you when you get primaried in the next election.

Anyway, as I have mentioned a couple of times, I voted for Bernie out of principle. I still think he can win, but I think HRC has a better shot against Trump, especially if the hysterical Bernie fans will get off her a**. And quit talking about how they would rather vote for Trump than her. There is no rational explanation for voting Trump over HRC, no matter how much you may hate her.

[Hornsby]

Just to inject a couple of things which might be helpful to the conversation. For Mith, it is a Democratic primary, held by the Democratic Party, which is permitted by law to have its own rules. They can caucus or have a primary, they can split the votes how they want. It has been that way, so far as I remember, forever. The superdelegates where thought to add some stability to the process, perhaps after Goldwater and McGovern.

For everyone else, the DNC is the Democratic National Committee. Is it hard to understand why they would be hopeful that a Democrat would win the nomination? Bernie, as fine a fellow as he may be, is not a Democrat.

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 70s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries. The media tends to count them in with whomever they express support for. Is it unreasonable for them to openly express support, at this point, for the only Democrat in the race? They will do whatever they will do at the Convention if it gets that far, but their votes won't count unless it gets that far, at least as I understand the process. So why piss off your party needlessly? Bernie isn't a party guy, has no influence in the party, and won't be able to help you when you get primaried in the next election.

Anyway, as I have mentioned a couple of times, I voted for Bernie out of principle. I still think he can win, but I think HRC has a better shot against Trump, especially if the hysterical Bernie fans will get off her a**. And quit talking about how they would rather vote for Trump than her. There is no rational explanation for voting Trump over HRC, no matter how much you may hate her.

As Stan Lee used to say, 'nuff said...

[Mithrandir]

Just to inject a couple of things which might be helpful to the conversation. As far as basing the nomination upon who gets the most votes, what we are talking about is a Democratic primary, held by the Democratic Party, which is permitted by law to have its own rules. They can caucus or have a primary, they can split the votes how they want. It has been that way, so far as I remember, forever. The superdelegates where thought to add some stability to the process, following the 1968 disaster in Chicago.

As for being biased against Bernie, the DNC is the Democratic National Committee. Is it hard to understand why they would be hopeful that a Democrat would win the nomination? Bernie, as fine a fellow as he may be, is not a Democrat.

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 80s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries. The media tends to count them in with whomever they express support for. Is it unreasonable for them to openly express support, at this point, for the only Democrat in the race? They will do whatever they will do at the Convention if it gets that far, but their votes won't count unless it gets that far, at least as I understand the process. So why piss off your party needlessly? Bernie isn't a party guy, has no influence in the party, and won't be able to help you when you get primaried in the next election.

Anyway, as I have mentioned a couple of times, I voted for Bernie out of principle. I still think he can win, but I think HRC has a better shot against Trump, especially if the hysterical Bernie fans will get off her a**. And quit talking about how they would rather vote for Trump than her. There is no rational explanation for voting Trump over HRC, no matter how much you may hate her.

So you're saying that the Democratic Party is not really made up of the millions of people registered as Democrats, but it really is made up of those high powered people that control who they "think" is best for their party and the USA?

[BuckyBuckner]

Clinton's lead is 759 to Sanders' 546. That's not exactly 2-1. The problem is that when Bernie wins an upset like Michigan he only gains 7 delegates (65-58) so it is really meaningless in the big picture. Meanwhile Hillary's win in Mississippi netted her 25 delegates (29-4) cause she crushed him.

And Mith, those high powered people where elected to their positions by the millions of people. Having said that, I can understand the frustration you have.

[Mithrandir]

Clinton's lead is 759 to Sanders' 546. That's not exactly 2-1. The problem is that when Bernie wins an upset like Michigan he only gains 7 delegates (65-58) so it is really meaningless in the big picture. Meanwhile Hillary's win in Mississippi netted her 25 delegates (29-4) cause she crushed him.

And Mith, those high powered people where elected to their positions by the millions of people. Having said that, I can understand the frustration you have.

Well I was not that educated on this issue and thanks to the posts I now have new insight as to how things are run. So thanks guys!

And is the frustrating issue the fact that there is no 3rd party to represent us voters who don't like either party??

[Sour Masher]

Just to inject a couple of things which might be helpful to the conversation. As far as basing the nomination upon who gets the most votes, what we are talking about is a Democratic primary, held by the Democratic Party, which is permitted by law to have its own rules. They can caucus or have a primary, they can split the votes how they want. It has been that way, so far as I remember, forever. The superdelegates where thought to add some stability to the process, following the 1968 disaster in Chicago.

As for being biased against Bernie, the DNC is the Democratic National Committee. Is it hard to understand why they would be hopeful that a Democrat would win the nomination? Bernie, as fine a fellow as he may be, is not a Democrat.

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 80s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries. The media tends to count them in with whomever they express support for. Is it unreasonable for them to openly express support, at this point, for the only Democrat in the race? They will do whatever they will do at the Convention if it gets that far, but their votes won't count unless it gets that far, at least as I understand the process. So why piss off your party needlessly? Bernie isn't a party guy, has no influence in the party, and won't be able to help you when you get primaried in the next election.

Anyway, as I have mentioned a couple of times, I voted for Bernie out of principle. I still think he can win, but I think HRC has a better shot against Trump, especially if the hysterical Bernie fans will get off her a**. And quit talking about how they would rather vote for Trump than her. There is no rational explanation for voting Trump over HRC, no matter how much you may hate her.

Very well put, and basically my position from soup to nuts. One may not like the realities of the first part of what you cover, but it isn't new, and it isn't all that surprising. That reality should not lead to the other extreme of voting for a racist demagogue over a flawed but vastly superior candidate in HRC, who frankly does have a better shot at beating the GOP candidate.

[Mithrandir]

Another question. When do these high powered people get elected? I have no idea.

yeah I know jack shit about elections.

[BuckyBuckner]

Hillary - 1,271 delegates
Sanders - 574 delegates

So actually more than 2 to 1. This counts pledged delegates (of course).

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

And those "high-powered" people were elected into their current positions by the party of which they are members.

You are including the super delegates who can vote for whoever they want at the convention. Their votes are not set in stone. It's possible they switch their votes. I'm not saying it will happen, but it's possible.

[BuckyBuckner]

Another question. When do these high powered people get elected? I have no idea.

yeah I know jack shit about elections.

From Lucky's post

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 80s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries.

[Mithrandir]

From Lucky's post

The superdelegates, which I think have been in the process since the 80s are Democrats. They are Democratic Senators, House Members, Governors and leaders of the national and local Democratic parties. They are not bound to support whoever wins the caucuses and primaries.

I did see that but forgot about it when I was posting. Damn brain is moving slow today

[Mithrandir]

So the main issue (and has been for years and years) is:

we need a viable 3rd party.

[BuckyBuckner]

My concern about a third party, and maybe it doesn't matter, is that you will then have someone that most likely wins without coming close to getting half of the votes. You'll potentially have someone that well over half the country doesn't like. Right?