Rep. David Bowen, a Wisconsin super delegate, sides with Sanders. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]A Democratic super delegate in Wisconsin has decided to endorse Bernie Sanders, who defeated Hillary Clinton in the state’s primary earlier this week. State Rep. David Bowen is the first of the state’s 10 super delegates to side with Sanders. Six others are committed to Clinton and three are not saying who they will back. Sanders’ 13-point win over Clinton on Tuesday in Wisconsin netted him 10 more delegates than her. But she could have tied him in delegates if all 10 super delegates went her way. Now with Bowen’s decision, Sanders is guaranteed to have at least a two-delegate advantage in Wisconsin. Source: [URL]http://fox6now.com/2016/04/07/rep-david-bowen-a-super-delegate-sides-with-sanders-six-others-in-wi-committed-to-clinton/[/URL] [URL]https://www.facebook.com/Bowen4Action/timeline[/URL][/QUOTE]

And so it begins. And people said Bernie would fizzle out after a while, good to know those defeatist attitudes didn't pay off

That's a responsible thing to do. Good on him

Good shit. I wanna see him get far.

What's the purpose of super delegates? Looks to me like it's a system that ensures the nomination goes to the party favorite while maintaining a facade of democracy.

GOP does not have this system. It for the lack of a better term, has mob rule. Which allows people like Trump to hijack a party with demagoguery. Superdelagates are designed to keep things like that from happening. [IMG]http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/davidbowen.jpg[/IMG] This is what he looks like.

6 are committed to Clinton and only a potential 4 for Bernie, even though he won? Democracy everybody.

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50104957]GOP does not have this system. It for the lack of a better term, has mob rule. Which allows people like Trump to hijack a party with demagoguery. Superdelagates are designed to keep things like that from happening. [/QUOTE] No, the GOP brought that upon themselves by pretending to pander to the extremists for the longest time while not delivering. Super delegates may have prevented the rise of Trump in the current election, but it would be a band-aid fix for a deeper problem. Further, as has been shown on the Democrat side, super delegates can also be used to favor the party's favored candidate and impose a bias when it arguably isn't needed. [QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50104972]6 are committed to Clinton and only a potential 4 for Bernie, even though he won? Democracy everybody.[/QUOTE] They aren't committed to anyone until they cast their vote; the super delegate counts are not official by any means.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50104995]No, the GOP brought that upon themselves by pretending to pander to the extremists for the longest time while not delivering. Super delegates may have prevented the rise of Trump in the current election, but it would be a band-aid fix for a deeper problem. Further, as has been shown on the Democrat side, super delegates can also be used to favor the party's favored candidate and impose a bias when it arguably isn't needed. They aren't committed to anyone until they cast their vote; the super delegate counts are not official by any means.[/QUOTE] That what some other here have said. I am repeating there words. If true I agree.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50104995] They aren't committed to anyone until they cast their vote; the super delegate counts are not official by any means.[/QUOTE] That's not what I mean, two more superdelegates voiced their support for Hillary after Bernie won in that state. So basically they happily went against the voters' opinion and supported the party favourite. This is exactly why I don't expect Bernie to get the majority in superdelegates, even if he does get the popular vote

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50104972]6 are committed to Clinton and only a potential 4 for Bernie, even though he won? Democracy everybody.[/QUOTE] The inner workings of a party don't have to be democratic.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50105059]The inner workings of a party don't have to be democratic.[/QUOTE] But if it disrupts the whole democratic process then that would be foul play, wouldn't you think? I think it's pretty clear the US would choose Bernie and not Hillary if the choice was actually left up to them. Despite that fact though every attempt at shutting him out is being made because he doesn't cater to that establishment. Sure a party doesn't need to be democratic, but they are being manipulative and undermining the democratic process at large.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50105059]The inner workings of a party don't have to be democratic.[/QUOTE] But when you basically only have two far-right parties to vote for a little bit more choice isn't too much to ask for.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;50105111]But if it disrupts the whole democratic process then that would be foul play, wouldn't you think? I think it's pretty clear the US would choose Bernie and not Hillary if the choice was actually left up to them. Despite that fact though every attempt at shutting him out is being made because he doesn't cater to that establishment. Sure a party doesn't need to be democratic, but they are being manipulative and undermining the democratic process at large.[/QUOTE] Why have more people voted for Hillary then?

[QUOTE=CatFodder;50105148]Why have more people voted for Hillary then?[/QUOTE] There's a big difference between primaries and the general election.

I really hope that the momentum keeps up and actually has Hillary get crushed. I don't want a fight between two evils here. Just in case anyone is still a defeatist dipshit, try to go for Bernie's support anyway. A small percentage chance can't be done without atleast making an attempt.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50105175]I really hope that the momentum keeps up and actually has Hillary get crushed. I don't want a fight between two evils here. Just in case anyone is still a defeatist dipshit, try to go for Bernie's support anyway. A small percentage chance can't be done without atleast making an attempt.[/QUOTE] bernie has no chance, so you should vote for [my candidate] instead. [my candidate] is a sure thing and will beat everyone!

[QUOTE=CatFodder;50105148]Why have more people voted for Hillary then?[/QUOTE] Out of fear and the inability to read and understand people who are not their own. They think Clinton is more electable for some reason due to moderation or some crap. They think moderates are "in between" They are not.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50105226]bernie has no chance, so you should vote for [my candidate] instead. [my candidate] is a sure thing and will beat everyone![/QUOTE] Honestly, I don't see why a candidate having more chance of winning is used as an argument for voting for them.

[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50104957]GOP does not have this system. It for the lack of a better term, has mob rule. Which allows people like Trump to hijack a party with demagoguery. Superdelagates are designed to keep things like that from happening. [IMG]http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/davidbowen.jpg[/IMG] This is what he looks like.[/QUOTE] How is that a good thing? At all?

[QUOTE=_Axel;50105237]Honestly, I don't see why a candidate having more chance of winning is used as an argument for voting for them.[/QUOTE] In France it's a bit different to the US, because you have that two-round voting system which (somewhat) negates some of the undesirable attributes of the American system. That argument you mentioned is actually a valid argument in the US, though. Take an example: Election day. There's an electorate which is a single-member district. Say, 55% of the electorate align mostly with the Democrats. 45% align mostly with the Republicans. If the Democrats and Republicans put up one candidate each, and no other candidates contested the election, the Democrat candidate would win, easy. But the left fringe of the Democrats reckon that the Democrat candidate isn't 'left enough'. So that fringe puts up a candidate, and 20% of the Democrat-aligned voters go for that fringe candidate instead. Election results are in: 44% for the Democrat candidate, 11% for the fringe candidate, and 45% for the Republican candidate. The Republican candidate wins, despite most people not wanting that candidate. Now if this exact same election happened in your country, a second round of voting would happen where only the Democrat and Republican candidate would contest, and the Democrat would win assuming the fringe voters went back and voted for the Democrat, who they agree with more than the Republican (just hope that their apathy doesn't fuck things up). Voting for someone who has a better chance of winning makes sense in America, because when you don't vote for that candidate, it makes it easier for a candidate who you do not like at all being elected instead.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;50105111]But if it disrupts the whole democratic process then that would be foul play, wouldn't you think?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't blame the party for undermining the democratic process, I'd blame the system for relying on a private organisation to uphold the democratic process. The state should provide a fair electoral system in the first place instead of relying so heavily on the parties themselves to do the job. If the system wasn't so bad then Sanders could still compete against Clinton in the general election (without handing over the victory to the Republican candidate I mean) and the nomination wouldn't be such a huge issue.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50105237]Honestly, I don't see why a candidate having more chance of winning is used as an argument for voting for them.[/QUOTE] Electability in the general election is pretty much exactly why primaries exist and why the Republicans wish they had superdelegates this year. [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] also what sb27 said

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50105584]I wouldn't blame the party for undermining the democratic process, I'd blame the system for relying on a private organisation to uphold the democratic process. The state should provide a fair electoral system in the first place instead of relying so heavily on the parties themselves to do the job. If the system wasn't so bad then Sanders could still compete against Clinton in the general election (without handing over the victory to the Republican candidate I mean) and the nomination wouldn't be such a huge issue.[/QUOTE] The parties are the whole reason it got to this point, they're entirely to blame because they rigged the game. How can the states provide a fair electoral system when the two parties that control our federal government allowed extreme gerrymandering to happen?

[QUOTE=_Axel;50104926]What's the purpose of super delegates? Looks to me like it's a system that ensures the nomination goes to the party favorite while maintaining a facade of democracy.[/QUOTE] Initially to prevent people like George Wallace from becoming president. When they made the primary system, the democratic party had a large group of people in the south who were dedicated to segregation. They created the super delegate system to prevent those people from getting nominated

I am still quite worried about New York it being closed Primary and all but this does give me some hope

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50107036]I am still quite worried about New York it being closed Primary and all but this does give me some hope[/QUOTE] Actually a lot of support rising for Bernie here in parts of New York. Bernie is coming to my campus tomorrow and you would not believe how hyped people are here. The problem is though, getting most of these people to vote. You wouldn't believe how many people there are who want to vote, but don't know how.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50107130]Actually a lot of support rising for Bernie here in parts of New York. Bernie is coming to my campus tomorrow and you would not believe how hyped people are here. The problem is though, getting most of these people to vote. You wouldn't believe how many people there are who want to vote, but don't know how.[/QUOTE] Yeah college campuses aren't exactly great for indicating voting. Most young people don't care enough to vote

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50107421]Yeah college campuses aren't exactly great for indicating voting. Most young people don't care enough to vote[/QUOTE] Except for Bernie. Statistically speaking.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50107130]Actually a lot of support rising for Bernie here in parts of New York. Bernie is coming to my campus tomorrow and you would not believe how hyped people are here. The problem is though, getting most of these people to vote. [B]You wouldn't believe how many people there are who want to vote, but don't know how.[/B] [/QUOTE][/B] That is the issue I am talking about they cant vote now because I believe the deadline to vote for democrat was October, The Question should be how much people are hyping for him that are already a registered democrat.