[QUOTE]Despite Mr. Sanders‘ huge victories this weekend, Mrs. Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite. She still maintained a massive lead in the delegate hunt, in part due to her dominance of the superdelegates, who are elected officials and party leaders who are free to back whomever they chose at the convention.
Mrs. Clinton had 1,712 delegates, including 469 superdelegates, and Mr. Sanders had 1,004 delegates, including 29 superdelegates, according to a tally by The Associated Press.
It takes 2,383 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.
[B]“A lot of these superdelegates may rethink their position with Secretary Clinton, a lot have not yet declared, and then you have superdelegates that are in states where we win by 40 or 50 points,” said Mr. Sanders. “I think their own constituents are going to say to them, ‘Hey, why don’t you support the people of our state [and] vote for Sanders.’”[/B]
He argued that the superdelegates also should rethink their allegiance in light of polls that show him beating Republican front-runner Donald Trump by larger margins.
A recent Fox News poll showed Mr. Sanders topping Mr. Trump by 14 points in a theoretical matchup, compared to Mrs. Clinton beating the billionaire businessman by 11 points.
Mr. Sanders continues to draw crowds of thousands to his events, which dwarf Mrs. Clinton’s rallies. He regularly beats Mrs. Clinton with young voters and liberal voters, although Mrs. Clinton has dominated with minorities and older voters.
Mr. Sanders also does well in caucuses and when there are large turnouts, as was the case Saturday.
Mr. Sanders overwhelmed Mrs. Clinton in Alaska 81 percent to 18 percent, in Washington 72 percent to 27 percent and in Hawaii 69 percent to 30 percent, according to unofficial results.[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/27/bernie-sanders-urges-superdelegates-to-abandon-hil/"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/27/bernie-sanders-urges-superdelegates-to-abandon-hil/[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]"You’re assuming that every super delegate who now supports Secretary Clinton will stay with her... I think the super delegates are going to have make a very difficult decision and that is, if a candidate wins in a state by 40 or 50 points, who are you going to give your vote to?"[/B][/QUOTE]
Source: [URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/bernie_sanders_to_superdelegates_if_a_candidate_wins_your_state_by_40_or_50_points_who_are_you_going_to_give_your_vote_to.html"]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/27/bernie_sanders_to_superdelegates_if_a_candidate_wins_your_state_by_40_or_50_points_who_are_you_going_to_give_your_vote_to.html[/URL]
as soon as they do it's in the bag for him. The only thing she's riding on at this point.
i don't get how superdelegates are democratic at all
[QUOTE=General J;50018210]as soon as they do it's in the bag for him. The only thing she's riding on at this point.[/QUOTE]
I mean yeah obviously if all of them flipped to him he'd win it, but I'd hardly say that's the only thing she's riding on right now. She's still beating him with normal delegates by about 20%. The superdelegates are just icing on the cake for her right now.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50018215]i don't get how superdelegates are democratic at all[/QUOTE]
They aren't, and they aren't meant to be.
What they do is block someone like Donald Trump from wresting control of the party on a purely popular surge, regardless of how well their beliefs or policies line up with the party's, or how sensible or feasible their plans are.
Political process is difficult, but direct democracy is about as good an idea as a passenger jet piloted by consensus.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50018215]i don't get how superdelegates are democratic at all[/QUOTE]
Nothing says the inner workings of political parties have to be democratic.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50018258]They aren't, and they aren't meant to be.
What they do is block someone like Donald Trump from wresting control of the party on a purely popular surge, regardless of how well their beliefs or policies line up with the party's, or how sensible or feasible their plans are.
Political process is difficult, but direct democracy is about as good an idea as a passenger jet piloted by consensus.[/QUOTE]
Ironically, the Republicans don't have a super delegates system and now they are desperately attempting to block him from controlling the party. If Trump ran as a democrat, he would be in a much worse situation than he's in now.
[QUOTE=download;50018281]Nothing says the inner workings of political parties have to be democratic.[/QUOTE]
then you might as well have the slot open to the highest bidder
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50018338]then you might as well have the slot open to the highest bidder[/QUOTE]
Well, that's exactly what it is supposed to be.
[QUOTE=postal;50018229]I mean yeah obviously if all of them flipped to him he'd win it, but I'd hardly say that's the only thing she's riding on right now. She's still beating him with normal delegates by about 20%. The superdelegates are just icing on the cake for her right now.[/QUOTE]
ya but consistant misreporting by the media always says things like "well clinton has 1700 delagates to sander's 900 so sanders has lost" when in reality she has about 1200 now, and he has around 1000, and that misreporting makes it harder for him to get his message across the media. Top that with their incessant pandering about how he was a long shot, it all saps momentum
Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted?
What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?
[QUOTE=_Axel;50018419]Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted?
What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?[/QUOTE]
Then it would be a democracy. AKA mob rule.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50018419]Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted?
What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with the presidential election itself, which is fundamentally what you described. This is the presidential nomination which is important because failing to rally the party behind a single nominee leads to things like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860"]the election of 1860.[/URL] tl;dr version, the only reason Abraham Lincoln won is because way too many candidates ran and split the vote too many ways.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;50018431]Then it would be a democracy. AKA mob rule.[/QUOTE]
You say that like it's a bad thing. And before you point a Trump's (and Cruz's) rise to prominence on the Republican side, the situation that allowed that was created by the party itself. An even less democratic might have been able to stop it, but to what end? To allow even further disenfranchisement, to be even less representative of the people.
The point being, mob rule is quite poor really, but it's a choice between that and being controlled by an elite few who will look out for their best interests alone (which is what the current situation is leaning towards and that's been going oh so well for the average person).
[QUOTE=DaMastez;50018453]You say that like it's a bad thing. And before you point a Trump's (and Cruz's) rise to prominence on the Republican side, the situation that allowed that was created by the party itself. An even less democratic might have been able to stop it, but to what end? To allow even further disenfranchisement, to be even less representative of the people.
The point being, mob rule is quite poor really, but it's a choice between that and being controlled by an elite few who will look out for their best interests alone (which is what the current situation is leaning towards and that's been going oh so well for the average person).[/QUOTE]
That's an oligarchy, and the reason we have that kind of thing is because of a lack of a moral people. It would be not really different with a democracy, except it can happen faster. A republic is probably the least destructive form of government as it takes a while before it inevitably becomes corrupt. (It spreads around the power so no one group has too much power)
[QUOTE=Xubs;50018482]These are the nominations. Nomination voting systems are unfortunately decided by the political parties themselves, not the federal government. They can be as needlessly complicated as they wanna be. This whole weird superdelegate system is an invention of the Democratic Party.
General elections (ie, who becomes the actual person being voted for office, in this case the president) are a bit more straight-forward, it's just getting there.
Big emphasis on "a bit" more straightforward, by the way. There's still a lotta bullshit gunked up in there but at the very least it's consistent across all parties and all candidates.[/QUOTE]
ya pretty much the only 2 issues with the general election are the winner take all system vs the growing number of proportional states, every election cycle more states are dividing their electoral votes up proportionally, but right now you still have a lot of winner take all states, even when its like 51/50, the other issue is the electoral college itself, which doesn't exactly have to be there and it really discourages campaigning in places where a candidate will either outright loose or not pickup many votes, so people get ignored because they don't count as much as other people
[QUOTE=postal;50018229]I mean yeah obviously if all of them flipped to him he'd win it, but I'd hardly say that's the only thing she's riding on right now. She's still beating him with normal delegates by about 20%. The superdelegates are just icing on the cake for her right now.[/QUOTE]
She's ran out of southern predominately older black primaries. She still has primaries in general which she performs better in although Bernie performs better in primaries with very high white populations, which there are a few big ones coming up.
Her landslides up until this point are being actively negated by Bernie's landslides. Arizona was a tough hit for him and he'd be in a much better position with it going better but I would say that even beyond the superdelegates if he can grab even a slight win of something like 51-49 in NY he has a great shot at the nomination. If he bombs NY it's obviously going to be devastating for him.
Side note.
After wins in places like Hawaii and Michigan, the media is beginning to stop using the term "white voters" and instead using the term "nonblack" when referring to Bernie's strengths which I think is a little humorous.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50018561]She's ran out of southern predominately older black primaries. She still has primaries in general which she performs better in although Bernie performs better in primaries with very high white populations, which there are a few big ones coming up.
Her landslides up until this point are being actively negated by Bernie's landslides. Arizona was a tough hit for him and he'd be in a much better position with it going better but I would say that even beyond the superdelegates if he can grab even a slight win of something like 51-49 in NY he has a great shot at the nomination. If he bombs NY it's obviously going to be devastating for him.
Side note.
After wins in places like Hawaii and Michigan, the media is beginning to stop using the term "white voters" and instead using the term "nonblack" when referring to Bernie's strengths which I think is a little humorous.[/QUOTE]
Could you/someone explain why exactly Hillary is so popular among the "older black" population?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6WUFWmd.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=bitches;50018569]Could you/someone explain why exactly Hillary is so popular among the "older black" population?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6WUFWmd.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
she's name brand and he's an old white guy
Another thing to keep in mind that the delegates for washington haven't been all divied out yet. And when it's all said and done Bernie will be only about 200ish delegates behind Hillary. Think about that, in one week Bernie closed a 100ish delegate gap. It's obviously going to be a difficult path, but if you recall, we were all told Bernie was done.
As far as I can tell the superdelegates are meaningless beyond being used as disinformation when the news reports delegate counts. I don't really get how anyone here thinks that superdelegates are going to break a historic tradition of supporting the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention. That is just pure speculation that goes against history.
These states are hugely important
[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/03bc6de704ba43e73105762a9abd4e60.png[/IMG]
Sanders is most likely going to win Wisconsin and Wyoming. If he can break even in NY to negate the delegate difference, he has a great shot at winning the equally important PA primary with 210 delegates. If Hillary doesn't sweep Sanders in NY it could be a pretty big morale hit for her campaign. Maryland will be an issue for him though, she is projected to do very well there.
I have a feeling Wisconsin is going to be a blowout win for Bernie considering his populist message resonates well with democrats who have had to deal with Scott Walker's Governorship.
Another thing that people can still hold on to is that Elizabeth Warren hasn't made an endorsement yet. She stated that she will make one at some point, and it could carry more weight now than it would have going into the deep south. Obviously she might not endorse Bernie but it's still worth noting.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50018419]Why does the US election process have to be so needlessly convoluted?
What's wrong with the whole population voting and % of total voters being what determines who becomes the president?[/QUOTE]
Because of when things like Donald Trump happen
[QUOTE=The Ultimate;50018613]Because of when things like Donald Trump happen[/QUOTE]
if anything, the US political system has given trump a platform to gain popularity upon. if elections were a free for all based on number of votes, trump would be significantly hindered as the GOP establishes their mainstream, more moderate candidate against him.
[QUOTE=The Ultimate;50018613]Because of when things like Donald Trump happen[/QUOTE]
Well you'll likely end up with Trump vs Hillary, which is the worst scenario you could end up with. I fail to see how the American system has managed to mitigate the damages.
Exclusively bipartite systems suck. You have a choice between far right and less far right. Nothing ends up being done but preserving the status quo.
[QUOTE]Maryland will be an issue for him though, she is projected to do very well there.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, Sexy Ex-Governor and part-time guitarist Martin O'Malley will be here to save the day.
EDIT: Off-topic, but I felt the need to share this.
[video=youtube;NWTBx3Ju-gY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWTBx3Ju-gY[/video]
[QUOTE=download;50018281]Nothing says the inner workings of political parties have to be democratic.[/QUOTE]
then they shouldn't run a sham democracy. i would have more respect for a party that just straight up said "yeah this is our candidate" than one that runs a vote where the democratically chosen candidate can be overridden by high ranking party members. of course you would need more than 2 parties having significant hold of power in politics and that just won't work in america due to how our election and congressional laws are set up
[QUOTE=bitches;50018569]Could you/someone explain why exactly Hillary is so popular among the "older black" population?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6WUFWmd.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
She has been consecrated by the blessed big O in chief
Seriously, they're going to vote Hillary because she's been in Obama's WH that's it
[editline]28th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;50018626]if anything, the US political system has given trump a platform to gain popularity upon. if elections were a free for all based on number of votes, trump would be significantly hindered as the GOP establishes their mainstream, more moderate candidate against him.[/QUOTE]
The primaries are intentionally set up for the most extreme candidates to take advantage of. The demographics in the early States are very schewed from the general population, look at how much money was poured into Iowa, a white, mostly rural state with very specific issues such as livestock and ethanol subsidies as well as home to a predominantly Christian voter base, Ted Cruz and trump are pretty much dead fits for those voters, while moderates have to hope to maintain momentum till the later months when more moderate States come into play but even then the majority of primary voters are usually extremists in their own parties and they make sure to vote, whereas the moderates and centerists sort of just vote if they can or assume the party will sort things out
[QUOTE=bitches;50018569]Could you/someone explain why exactly Hillary is so popular among the "older black" population?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6WUFWmd.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I feel like Bernie doesn't do well enough to talk about his past and what he's stood up for/done. A lot of people have a misconception about who he is, which is why they won't vote for him. Most thinking he probably hasn't done much or is too weak to be president or think he's popular among the youth because free college.
A lot of people who do support him, actually look into this info, and it just needs to be communicated across to those who don't know.
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;50018786]Black democrats are usually much more conservative than White dems. Black democrats are more socially conservative, more god fearing and therefore lean towards more of a centrist in Hillary who has talked a lot about how God has influenced her life and religion in general compared to Bernie. Also Hillary has said on numerous occasions that she wants to continue the policies of Obama. This is a big plus when it comes to luring in the Black vote. Bernie on the other hand, however active he was in the Civil Rights Movement, has criticized the president as not being liberal enough and any criticism of Obama is not going to bode well with the majority of black voters.[/QUOTE]
Thanks; at least now I understand where the madness comes from.
That and Hillary has helped push through a lot of policy that has helped minorities in the past, she has an actual record on this stuff.
I'm willing to bet if Bernie makes strides in delegates the super delegates will be willing to switch over, the delegates tend to vote with the person who's winning.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50018717]then they shouldn't run a sham democracy. i would have more respect for a party that just straight up said "yeah this is our candidate" than one that runs a vote where the democratically chosen candidate can be overridden by high ranking party members. of course you would need more than 2 parties having significant hold of power in politics and that just won't work in america due to how our election and congressional laws are set up[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, it was like that up until the 60s and 70s.
IIRC, the current nomination process, at least for the Democrats, has been in place since 1978. And superdelegates weren't something put in, they were left over from the original process before that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.