Democrats -- The party of Voter Disenfranchisement.

[Spare_change]

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 ....

 

[TheOldSchool]

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?

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

 

[Spare_change]

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?

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.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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?

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.

1. wild speculation
2. wild speculation
3. true I guess you don't win super delegates. But if you win the majority of votes and pledged delegates, then history has proven that you win the super delegates. So I guess you do win super delegates.
4. wild speculation

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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.

 

[owebo]

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.

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.

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.

But democrats are Bernie sanders....

 

[Disir]

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.

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.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ptbw forever]

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..

Bernie Supporters are just angry white males and females.

Democrats don't give a shit about them.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

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.

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.

The demographic changes are the only reason your party has any power at all with your anti-white platform.

If Trump loses we will simply create our own nation and destroy any power the US has left before Hillary can use it.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Personal Opinion:

1. Hillary Clinton was suppose to win the nomination and that is why those like Webb, Biden and other Democratic Politicians did not run or dropped out early.

2. Super Delegates are not bound to support the popular vote in the Primary and can swing their vote to any candidate.

Is it right?

Maybe to me it is not but that is the system and if you run on the Democratic Party then you know the rules.

3. Bernie Sanders rise sent a clear message to the Democratic Party that Green Party voters wanted someone else. Bernie Sanders is more of a Green Party candidate to me and those voting for him are green and third party voters which make me wonder how many of them will vote for Clinton, stay home, or go third party to Stein or Johnson?

Closing Remark:

Remember this is my opinion and many will disagree but the reality is Clinton was going to be the candidate and this was all for show. The Democratic Party had no intention of allowing Bernie Sanders to be their Presidential Candidate and have another 1976 type of overthrow ( when Carter derailed Kennedy run and won the nomination ).

So now the question will be if those that voted for Sanders will vote for Clinton and I have a gut feeling she will not carry the Green Party voter which should never be confused with the regular Democratic voter...

It would be like confusing Libertarians that vote for a GOP candidate as being regular Republican voters...

Again personal opinion...

 

[Spare_change]

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.

You know what? Let's DO talking about it ...

1) Gerrymandering - a time honored tradition practiced by the party in power at the time. In fact, if you look, you will notice that gerrymandering was first developed by a Democratic governor in 1812. Given that the Republican party didn't come into existence until 1854, it's pretty hard to lay that at the Republicans' feet. I strongly suspect you are confusing gerrymandering with malapportionment - a practice common in post-Civil War south by Democrats to control the blacks.

2) Motor-voter - refers to a federal act passed in 1993 that requires that voter registration be done at the local DMV -- nothing more, nothing less. Dems, relying on the ignorance and passivity of its followers, have tried to construe this as some way of restricting voter access because, after all, everybody knows that all the Dems don't have cars.

3) Voter ID laws - Voter ID laws are intended to ensure that only legal and authorized people vote in elections. The use of a myriad of different types of ID to establish the identity of the voter was proposed. Dems, because they have a long and storied history of voter fraud, have attempted to paint any effort to ensure eligibility as falling under the voter restriction banner. It is their position that it is better 1,000 illegal votes than a single vote somehow, implausibly, denied.

In no case have Republicans said that people eligible to vote would not/should not be allowed to vote. They have only asked that voting be restricted to those eligible to vote. The Democrats, on the other hand, have subverted the voting process for their own political gain. In the recent primaries, for example, each elected delegate represented about 30,000 Democratic voters. Super delegates, on the other hand, represented exactly ONE. So, the use of 700 super delegates potentially negated the votes of 21,000,000 Democratic voters. Oh, by the way - Hillary only won by 3 million votes.

Yes - let's talk about voter disenfranchisement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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..

Wait, the Republicans do the same thing. The only difference is they couldn't stop Trump, but the Dems could stop Sanders..... then all of a sudden the Republicans are acting like they're somehow better because they FAILED.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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..

So you're saying that the supers are the real reason Sanders lost?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

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.

The states aren't winner take all. A candidate can win the state and receive fewer delegates. They are apportioned based on congressional districts and who won which district.

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, you can see most Democrats desperately avoiding using that term these days. I mean, their Party represents 'Voter Disenfranchisement' in the most ugly blatant fashion. They know that. The OP is Spot On. Thanks.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

There absolutely is. Sanders lost because he did not have broad enough support across crucial demographic groups. That was known before anyone declared their candidacy and there is nothing the DNC did or could have done to rig that fact.