Superdelegates/DNC bias

[Belsnickel]

I've heard the term thrown around a lot in the past, but something has come up recently that made me really question them. In the NH primary, Sanders walked away with a win to the tune of 22 percentage points, yet he and Clinton walked away with the same number of delegates. All of this possible thanks to, you guessed it, super delegates.

On CNN, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, was asked about this. The answer is, well, a more than a little concerning.




Is it just me, or does she make it seem like it doesn't really matter who the people vote for, because these unpledged, or superdelegates are assigned to pretty much level the field?

Combined with this recent news item, it seems like the DNC is doing everything it can, and not subtly I might add, to insure a Clinton victory.

Edit to add link to a story with the transcript: http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-struggles-to-explain-why-nominating-process-isnt-rigged-against-sanders-video/

[JustWinBaby]

(02-12-2016, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it just me, or does she make it seem like it doesn't really matter who the people vote for, because these unpledged, or superdelegates are assigned to pretty much level the field?

In theory, yes.  But after it's all said and done, they tend to align with the common delegates.  There was some speculation back in 2008 that the superdelegates could give the nomination to Clinton, but obviously that didn't happen.

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2016, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Combined with this recent news item, it seems like the DNC is doing everything it can, and not subtly I might add, to insure a Clinton victory.

MOST everyone realizes that the DNC is/will do everything in its power to select Hillary Clinton. 

[JustWinBaby]

Well, the foundation of socialism is that govt knows what's best for you better than you know yourself. So why would they let decide who to nominate should you stray from the path of kool-aid and breadcrumbs?

[StLucieBengal]

Shocking the progressives are in cahoots to ensure the progressive bests the socialist.

[BmorePat87]

According to exit polls and voter turnout numbers, the majority of registered democrats have cast votes for Hillary. Bernie's edge is from independents.

I don't see an issue with the party ensuring their members are heard, not independents.

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2016, 07:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to exit polls and voter turnout numbers, the majority of registered democrats have cast votes for Hillary. Bernie's edge is from independents.

I don't see an issue with the party ensuring their members are heard, not independents.

I don't have a problem with that aspect of it, but the idea that it could subvert the voters, even Democrats, is concerning.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 07:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to exit polls and voter turnout numbers, the majority of registered democrats have cast votes for Hillary. Bernie's edge is from independents.

I don't see an issue with the party ensuring their members are heard, not independents.

Then don't let An independent run in your primary

[BmorePat87]

(02-12-2016, 08:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then don't let An independent run in your primary

Like who can vote in their primary, that bit of it is out of their hands once Bernie registered Democrat and met all the requirements. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2016, 08:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then don't let An independent run in your primary

This is actually something that has been of interest to me from the start and I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention. I understand Sanders typically caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, but he is an independent. It's interesting, because with his following it is obvious he could do better than any third-party/independent candidate has done in likely a century or more. So why did he run Dem?

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 07:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Shocking the progressives are in cahoots to ensure the progressive bests the socialist.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is actually something that has been of interest to me from the start and I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention. I understand Sanders typically caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, but he is an independent. It's interesting, because with his following it is obvious he could do better than any third-party/independent candidate has done in likely a century or more. So why did he run Dem?

If he isn't willing to rock the D then they shouldn't let him run for the democrat nomination for president. And if they are going to let him run then they shouldn't be rigging the game for Hillary.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Lol you and that fat jeremy piven.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 10:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol you and that fat jeremy piven.

You and "progressives" being blamed for everything...

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: You and "progressives" being blamed for everything...

Well they are deeply seeded within the establishment of both parties. That's the problem. I wish sanders would win for the simple fact we would be breaking the progressive hold on one of the major parties. Been there since Wilson for the democrats.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 10:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well they are deeply seeded within the establishment of both parties.   That's the problem.   I wish sanders would win for the simple fact we would be breaking the progressive hold on one of the major parties.      Been there since Wilson for the democrats.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-12-2016, 10:42 PM)GMDino Wrote:

hey don't bring it up if you don't want to face up to what is happening.

[Rotobeast]

(02-12-2016, 10:42 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Why are you hitting a stinky donkey in the junk ?


Is it an Italian thing ?

[Aquapod770]

(02-12-2016, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is actually something that has been of interest to me from the start and I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention. I understand Sanders typically caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, but he is an independent. It's interesting, because with his following it is obvious he could do better than any third-party/independent candidate has done in likely a century or more. So why did he run Dem?

Because if he ran 3rd party he wouldn't win. He wouldn't get near as much exposure. Running with the Dems in the primary gives him way more exposure, and if by some miracle Hilldog wins the primary, Sanders could run independent and probably get more support than Clinton in the general election. 

[JustWinBaby]

(02-13-2016, 12:44 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Because if he ran 3rd party he wouldn't win. He wouldn't get near as much exposure. Running with the Dems in the primary gives him way more exposure, and if by some miracle Hilldog wins the primary, Sanders could run independent and probably get more support than Clinton in the general election. 

Do people really think Sanders is going to run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination?  Or is that just wishful thinking (from Dems or Repubs, or both?)