Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Okay quick question... what part of what I said wasn't true?Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Actually, that's not true ... you need to look closer at the individual state races. Once you do that, then look at the allocation of delegates based on that vote. Bernie can win a state and get fewer delegates than Hillary? Something smells ....
Okay quick question... what part of what I said wasn't true?Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Actually, that's not true ... you need to look closer at the individual state races. Once you do that, then look at the allocation of delegates based on that vote. Bernie can win a state and get fewer delegates than Hillary? Something smells ....
1. Hillary won the majority vote by millions
2. Hillary won the majority of pledged delegates
3. Hillary won the majority of super-delegates
4. Superdelegates have always gone with the pledged majority
1. wild speculationOkay quick question... what part of what I said wasn't true?Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Actually, that's not true ... you need to look closer at the individual state races. Once you do that, then look at the allocation of delegates based on that vote. Bernie can win a state and get fewer delegates than Hillary? Something smells ....
1. Hillary won the majority vote by millions
2. Hillary won the majority of pledged delegates
3. Hillary won the majority of super-delegates
4. Superdelegates have always gone with the pledged majority
1. While your statement is technically correct, your grand, sweeping claim isn't true. We do NOT allocate delegates by the sum of the popular vote. Rather, it is their performance in the individual states that determines that. Here is an article from the ever-so-conservative LA Times that explains how Hillary won - and how the election was rigged. Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's winning?
2. Here is how the delegates were SUPPOSED to be allocated - Frontloading HQ: 2016 Democratic Delegate Allocation Rules by State - however, they conveniently "forgot" to apply this to the super delegates.
3. You don't "win super-delegates". They are free to vote as they wish - no matter the popular vote. Money, position, friendships all play a role in their "decision". (Am I hinting that some were bought? You damn right I am) Follow the Clinton Foundation money.
4. That is a self fulfilling prophesy. Given that super delegates represent about a quarter of the delegate total - and given the influence of them aligning with a single candidate on the campaigning process, it would be amazing - if not impossible - that they would also be among the pledged majority. They didn't "go with" the majority - they actively influenced who was going to get the majority. the closer a candidate gets to securing enough delegates, the less money becomes available to his/her challengers, the more positive the press presents the leader (the presumptive nominee, the favorite of mainline democrats, etc., etc.) as well as the acceptance by the voters that her nomination is inevitable and they should get on the bandwagon virtually ensures a victory. Giving one candidate a 700 delegate head start hardly exemplifies the democratic process.
Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?
But democrats are Bernie sanders....Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?
If it’s common knowledge, then there is no problem. The Democrats were very smart to keep their party from being hijacked by a non party member. Lets remember, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?
If it’s common knowledge, then there is no problem. The Democrats were very smart to keep their party from being hijacked by a non party member. Lets remember, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?
If it’s common knowledge, then there is no problem. The Democrats were very smart to keep their party from being hijacked by a non party member. Lets remember, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
And the Democrats are not liberals.
Bernie Supporters are just angry white males and females.Clearly -- the anger of the Bernie delegates is justified. The party that used "Voter Disenfranchisement" as an accusation got caught being a major creator of "Voter Dissing".
What else would you call 700+ delegates who were never elected, each having 10,000 TIMES the power of an elected delegate? And WHY when these Supers went in front of the cameras and on the Sunday Talk circuit to chat up the wonderful qualities of their dangerous lunatic nominee -- did they not have to DISCLOSE that they were ACTUALLY a SuperDelegate by way of Party hierarchy or elected office? You don't think it was to PROTECT THEMSELVES from blowback at their next election? Nawwwwww...
What's with all the coin flips and card draws for delegates done ad hoc on the floor of the primaries?
Voter Disenfranchisement is a serious accusation. And I wouldn't make it without a CLEAR case.. They need to be pushed back. Especially after being caught in the act --- red handed.. Hell to pay.. It's not going away..
The demographic changes are the only reason your party has any power at all with your anti-white platform.Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?
If it’s common knowledge, then there is no problem. The Democrats were very smart to keep their party from being hijacked by a non party member. Lets remember, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
And the Democrats are not liberals.
There is nothing pre-ordained that says Democrats must be liberals or Republicans must be conservatives. I offer Drumpf as an example.
Surprisingly you have a point. The group of 2016 democrats owe a lot to the 1980’s republicans. There was a time from 1968 to 1992 that the GOP held the White House for all but 4 of those years. Think about that; 4 out of 24 years. Then the GOP went plumb crazy with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and hasn’t recovered since.
Pro Tip: When they have their post-mortem for this year trying out to figure “what went wrong”, look for the word/phrase “extremist” or “extreme” or “all or nothing” to be banished from the GOP playbook. They keep running that offense and it’s killing them.
Ask any Republican about gerrymandering. You'll get either blank stares or a wry s,lie. Ask any Republican about motor-voter. Again, stares or smiles. Ask any Republican about the recent Supreme Court ruling that stripped the Voter's Rights Act of 1964. Ask them about voter ID laws. Ask them about their opposition to same day voter registration and Election Day.
Then tell us more aboutDemocrats--The party of Voter Disenfranchisment.
Clearly -- the anger of the Bernie delegates is justified. The party that used "Voter Disenfranchisement" as an accusation got caught being a major creator of "Voter Dissing".
What else would you call 700+ delegates who were never elected, each having 10,000 TIMES the power of an elected delegate? And WHY when these Supers went in front of the cameras and on the Sunday Talk circuit to chat up the wonderful qualities of their dangerous lunatic nominee -- did they not have to DISCLOSE that they were ACTUALLY a SuperDelegate by way of Party hierarchy or elected office? You don't think it was to PROTECT THEMSELVES from blowback at their next election? Nawwwwww...
What's with all the coin flips and card draws for delegates done ad hoc on the floor of the primaries?
Voter Disenfranchisement is a serious accusation. And I wouldn't make it without a CLEAR case.. They need to be pushed back. Especially after being caught in the act --- red handed.. Hell to pay.. It's not going away..
Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
Clearly -- the anger of the Bernie delegates is justified. The party that used "Voter Disenfranchisement" as an accusation got caught being a major creator of "Voter Dissing".
What else would you call 700+ delegates who were never elected, each having 10,000 TIMES the power of an elected delegate? And WHY when these Supers went in front of the cameras and on the Sunday Talk circuit to chat up the wonderful qualities of their dangerous lunatic nominee -- did they not have to DISCLOSE that they were ACTUALLY a SuperDelegate by way of Party hierarchy or elected office? You don't think it was to PROTECT THEMSELVES from blowback at their next election? Nawwwwww...
What's with all the coin flips and card draws for delegates done ad hoc on the floor of the primaries?
Voter Disenfranchisement is a serious accusation. And I wouldn't make it without a CLEAR case.. They need to be pushed back. Especially after being caught in the act --- red handed.. Hell to pay.. It's not going away..
Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
It's not hard to see why the only Democrat in the Democrat primary race would garner the most support from Democrats.
Wild speculation. Any truth to your belief that Hillary started with 700 delegates is because at the start Bernie was polling at nothing. If he'd won the majority vote and delegates, then you'd have an argument. But you don't.Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
Actually, it's not speculation at all. Look at the states Bernie won, but ended up with fewer state delegates than Hillary. Look at the margin of victories in other states for Bernie, and how the overall delegate count was allocated.
The system was rigged for Hillary.
Do the damn math.
Fact is Hillary won the majority vote by millions, won the delegates, and the super-delegates, as they have since the beginning of the party, went with the majority.
Largely BECAUSE she had 700 delegates before the voting started. Everyone KNEW that. Including the media, the donors, and all the OTHER Dem candidates that were TOO smart to even DECLARE --- knowing the hurdles and the fact it has BEEN a coronation -- not an election. You can't COMPETE when you START down by that margin. CLEARLY --- Voter Disenfranchisement.
It's not hard to see why the only Democrat in the Democrat primary race would garner the most support from Democrats.
The problem is simple ---- if you level the playing field, there is no assurance, and certainly no statistical validity, to the assumption that Hillary would win.
