[QUOTE]Bernie Sanders predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton would not win enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination ahead of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, and he delivered his most forceful call yet for superdelegates in states he's won to consider throwing their support to him.
Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the Vermont senator argued that Clinton "will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention."
Sanders said that in the states where he handily defeated Clinton, superdelegates who aren't supporting him should reconsider aligning themselves with the will of voters of those states.
Source:
[URL]http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/bernie-sanders-contested-convention-222685[/URL][/QUOTE]
This article was written before Sanders' Indiana victory.
The Democratic Convention in June is going to be the most exciting thing yet in this election (assuming its contested)
Several caucuses that Bernie previously lost have gone in his favor because Clinton delegates didn't show up, one example being Nevada.
It's all unlikely, but you never know.
[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775[/url]
No it won't
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50261079]The Democratic Convention in June is going to be the most exciting thing yet in this election (assuming its contested)
Several caucuses that Bernie previously lost have gone in his favor because Clinton delegates didn't show up, one example being Nevada.
It's all unlikely, but you never know.[/QUOTE]
California is showing promise - so this might be tighter than it looked after the last devastating super Tuesday.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50261091][URL]http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775[/URL]
No it won't[/QUOTE]
Those only specifically factor in pledged delegates; the coming stages have a large number of super-delegates, plus one from previous states that could shift their position.
Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE]
They shouldn't exist - but if they can be used by both, then why not exploit that to its fullest.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50261113]How surprisingly irrelevant to the op.
Posting articles about how Bernie can't win to shoot Bernie can still win posters before they even post, and they say r/feelthebern is childish.[/QUOTE]
Superdelegates will not go over to Bernie, and winning by superdelegates is not the same as a contested convention.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE]
The arguments are they aren't good but if it's the system we are experiencing then surely they should be fairly divided? I see no reason why Clinton would have 1645 delegates to 520 superdelegates while Sanders has 1318 delegates to 39 superdelegates. There are clearly Clinton superdelegates going against the will of the people in this case.
It's possible. Bernie needs to perform very well to stop her though
I guess there can be some "contest" before the convention to try and get superdelegates on side, but Clinton is still going to win it on the first ballot, which can disqualify it from being considered a "contested convention" depending on what definition you use.
I am just amazed that the DNC is still pushing someone who stands worse in the national polls, [I]and[/I] who got a current criminal investigation going on which is just candy for anyone running against her for the general election. Not even counting in which candidate I prefer (since I honestly don't see why Hillary is [I]that[/I] bad), it just puzzles me that they would push for the one with less chance of winning the actual presidency against Trump.
Then again, the entire U.S. party system is a puzzle to me. How come they don't have front-runners predetermined like everyone else?
If Clinton wins it might as well start practicing your roman salutes.
As much as I love Bernie, I think is this a really dumb thing to say.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50261198]As much as I love Bernie, I think is this a really dumb thing to say.[/QUOTE]
Why? Clinton still needs 700 pledged delegates. It's within reason.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50261117]Are superdelegates okay now then? Sanders supporters used to call them undemocratic and demand that they vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, but now they want them to overturn the outcome of the primary elections and back the losing candidate?[/QUOTE]
They're still horrifically undemocratic and an insult to the system as a whole, but you gotta do what ya gotta do.
wish the dem party knew the only way they are going to stand a chance would be if bernie was the nomination
with trump the de facto republican nomination, they have to be well aware that clinton will have a serious struggle to win against him if only because trump will have not only all the republican voters, but also a good chunk of dems who despise clinton
if the battle went down to trump and bernie though, there would be no contest
Who the hell are these deluded people who clearly have no clue who think that Clinton somehow gets destroyed by Trump just because she captures less of the immature tantrum throwing anti-establishment vote
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
Less lead =/= Clinton loses, and there are other reasons for this state of affairs other than Clinton being 'unelectable'
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50261261]Who the hell are these deluded people who clearly have no clue who think that Clinton somehow gets destroyed by Trump just because she captures less of the immature tantrum throwing anti-establishment vote
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
Less lead =/= Clinton loses, and there are other reasons for this state of affairs other than Clinton being 'unelectable'[/QUOTE]
its p immature to call people who are anti-establishment 'immature' since said establishment is responsible for vast income inequality, terrible wealth distribution, and politicians that are the complete opposite representations of the people they actually represent, a total waste of democracy in the first place; we now have a nearly monarchical state of politics with familial political power being greater than ever
trump, while not a better representation of the common man is at least not a product of the same governmental establishment that has put us through decades of stagnation, and most of his offensive propaganda, even if it is a show, [B]is[/B] actually a good representation of the american people (hint hint, a large number of americans are actually slightly racist, slightly sexist, outspoken, anti-government voters) and those people are going to vote for him, including a good chunk of anyone who was going to vote for bernie that hates clinton
even if a ton of bernie supporters, almost 50% of the dem voters if we go by the primaries, actually for some reason [B]don't[/B] despise clinton, that still splits the dem vote in the middle, and if every republican pretty much hates clinton, that means not only does trump get every rep vote, but he gets at least a good handful of the 50% of dems who voted bernie (who likely hate clinton)
[QUOTE=Riller;50261185]I am just amazed that the DNC is still pushing someone who stands worse in the national polls, [I]and[/I] who got a current criminal investigation going on which is just candy for anyone running against her for the general election. Not even counting in which candidate I prefer (since I honestly don't see why Hillary is [I]that[/I] bad), it just puzzles me that they would push for the one with less chance of winning the actual presidency against Trump.
Then again, the entire U.S. party system is a puzzle to me. How come they don't have front-runners predetermined like everyone else?[/QUOTE]
Trump has 10.1 million votes with everyone attacking him; Bernie has only 9.4 million.
How can anyone say he can stand against Trump better than Clinton?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50261279]Trump has 10.1 million votes with everyone attacking him; Bernie has only 9.4 million.
How can anyone say he can stand against Trump better than Clinton?[/QUOTE]
Literally every poll for months upon months from every news network, university, think tank, journal, anything
Bernie does better than clinton in open primaries,
Guess what. The general election is open.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50261279]Trump has 10.1 million votes with everyone attacking him; Bernie has only 9.4 million.
How can anyone say he can stand against Trump better than Clinton?[/QUOTE]
none of the clinton voters are going to vote for trump if she doesnt get the nomination, that gives bernie all of clintons voters as well as his own, and a potential chunk of trumps voters who only vote trump because of registered republican for the primaries
besides, bernie would destroy trump in debates, and trump has hardly attacked him at all because he has very few offensive qualities; if bernie beat clinton, even the few trump would use (weak, etc) would fall flat, especially since the two share the same view of some major policies (although trump flip flops constantly)
trump really doesn't have a lot of zingers available for a debate against Bernie whereas if Trump was up against Clinton, it'd be a shit fest
[QUOTE=Aztec;50261282]Literally every poll for months upon months from every news network, university, think tank, journal, anything
Bernie does better than clinton in open primaries,
Guess what. The general election is open.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Sander's has lost way more open primaries than Clinton, not sure where you're getting your facts from.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50261412]trump really doesn't have a lot of zingers available for a debate against Bernie whereas if Trump was up against Clinton, it'd be a shit fest[/QUOTE]
The most trump could do is socalist jokes comrade
[QUOTE=Aztec;50261282]Literally every poll for months upon months from every news network, university, think tank, journal, anything
[B]Bernie does better than clinton in open primaries,[/b]
Guess what. The general election is open.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain to me how this is the case when Hillary Clinton has won more open primaries than Bernie Sanders?
[QUOTE=Aztec;50261282]
Bernie does better than clinton in open primaries,[/QUOTE]
wrong
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50261412]trump really doesn't have a lot of zingers available for a debate against Bernie whereas if Trump was up against Clinton, it'd be a shit fest[/QUOTE]
Actually, Trump has been pretty nice to Bernie Sanders overall, probably because they are both anti establishment and because he might not consider sanders a threat.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50261824]Actually, Trump has been pretty nice to Bernie Sanders overall, probably because they are both anti establishment and because he might not consider sanders a threat.[/QUOTE]
Maybe trump hoped to pick up some of the anti establishment people.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;50261287]none of the clinton voters are going to vote for trump if she doesnt get the nomination, that gives bernie all of clintons voters as well as his own, and a potential chunk of trumps voters who only vote trump because of registered republican for the primaries
besides, bernie would destroy trump in debates, and trump has hardly attacked him at all because he has very few offensive qualities; if bernie beat clinton, even the few trump would use (weak, etc) would fall flat, especially since the two share the same view of some major policies (although trump flip flops constantly)[/QUOTE]
You think he'd stand a chance in a debate? He can't even debate Clinton without having her talk over him and laugh in his face even when he decided to go out of his way to defend her.
[video]https://youtu.be/aOOfwN0iYxM[/video]
I lost all respect for him over this; Especially since he threw away the only thing that can make him beat hillary, and she laughed in his fucking face.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50261969]You think he'd stand a chance in a debate? He can't even debate Clinton without having her talk over him and laugh in his face even when he decided to go out of his way to defend her.
[video]https://youtu.be/aOOfwN0iYxM[/video]
I lost all respect for him over this; Especially since he threw away the only thing that can make him beat hillary, and she laughed in his fucking face.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he wants to debate policies instead of talking about something that is:
A) Mainly a republican talking point - being associated with republicans could've been bad for his campaign
B) Something that may or may not even end up being relevant
And how is she laughing in his face? I mean generally she's jarring doing any expression, but obviously what he said was meant to be funny. And have you even watched one debate? It isn't the one sided shitfest you're painting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.