Democrats -- The party of Voter Disenfranchisement.

[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.

How do you OVERCOME a 15 pt deficit with REAL votes? Especially if that deficit is COMMON KNOWLEDGE from the day you declare?

Sanders knew that going in.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Oh? You’re going to create your own nation little man?

 

[paulitician]

Hopefully they won't be allowed to rig the General Election the way they did their Nomination process. Folks need to stay vigilant.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

Again with wild speculation. You speak intangibles and the abstract. Fact is superdelegates did exactly what they've done since they were first created.

They were created specifically to protect the party from its own voter base. Crooked as shit, hence the reduction of 60% of them for future elections.

 

[paulitician]

Oh, the dreaded 'D' word. Where are all those Democrats who used to love bitchin & moanin about it? Not sayin much these days, huh?

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You're not getting this.. Superdelegates are largely PLEDGED to the PARTY. From Day 1 of the contest. Not LIKELY to switch if the challenger is not a die-hard Dem. There WAS no contest. Because from BEFORE the primaries started --- those Supers were working HARD for Hilliary. THAT was the media time, that WAS the donor base.

You are looking at the RESULT. Not the PROCESS.. OF COURSE the result is what it is. But clearly, the process was loaded to win.

 

[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..

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

Seeing as she got 2,205 and he got 1,846 of the pledged delegates, this would probably mean, like in 2000, that he goes to court and one of his mates then hands him the race. Oh, wait, he doesn't have such mates.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

. Even when the ELECTED delegates are apportioned according to the ACTUAL vote -- the UNelected superdelegates get ADDED on top.. NOT apportioned. That's why Bernie had a 20% margin over Clinton in N.H. according to the VOTERS --- but Hillary got the SAME amount. Each superdelegate STOLE 10,000 or more votes from the people who voted.

This happened in EVERY STATE -- leaving bernie with having to win by a 15 to 18 PT. margin ---- just to break even.

No wonder the party gets away with it. The indentured voters don't know they are being screwed and fooled to believe that there WAS a contest.

 

[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.

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

You're not getting this.. Superdelegates are largely PLEDGED to the PARTY. From Day 1 of the contest. Not LIKELY to switch if the challenger is not a die-hard Dem. There WAS no contest. Because from BEFORE the primaries started --- those Supers were working HARD for Hilliary. THAT was the media time, that WAS the donor base.

You are looking at the RESULT. Not the PROCESS.. OF COURSE the result is what it is. But clearly, the process was loaded to win.

You are wrong of course. The supers are not bound or pledged to any candidate. They have always backed the primary winner since they've existed. Clinton had the most support among the supers going in to '08.
We see how that worked out.
Even if you split the supers evenly between Sanders and Clinton, Clinton still wins the nomination.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You're not getting this.. Superdelegates are largely PLEDGED to the PARTY. From Day 1 of the contest. Not LIKELY to switch if the challenger is not a die-hard Dem. There WAS no contest. Because from BEFORE the primaries started --- those Supers were working HARD for Hilliary. THAT was the media time, that WAS the donor base.

You are looking at the RESULT. Not the PROCESS.. OF COURSE the result is what it is. But clearly, the process was loaded to win.

You are wrong of course. The supers are not bound or pledged to any candidate. They have always backed the primary winner since they've existed. Clinton had the most support among the supers going in to '08.
We see how that worked out.
Even if you split the supers evenly between Sanders and Clinton, Clinton still wins the nomination.

The supers ALWAYS support the candidate who has bent over to take bullets for the party. It just based on LOYALTY and how many times you've LIED to protect other Dems. They have no political agenda or philosophy, it's all about POWER and WINNING..

Leaves their voters AND CANDIDATES powerless to challenge the DNC...

Obama skimmed the supers off of the annointed Hillary --- because in the DNC a half-black coherent young man TRUMPS a weasly, old white women. Dem Calculus 101....

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You're not getting this.. Superdelegates are largely PLEDGED to the PARTY. From Day 1 of the contest. Not LIKELY to switch if the challenger is not a die-hard Dem. There WAS no contest. Because from BEFORE the primaries started --- those Supers were working HARD for Hilliary. THAT was the media time, that WAS the donor base.

You are looking at the RESULT. Not the PROCESS.. OF COURSE the result is what it is. But clearly, the process was loaded to win.

You are wrong of course. The supers are not bound or pledged to any candidate. They have always backed the primary winner since they've existed. Clinton had the most support among the supers going in to '08.
We see how that worked out.
Even if you split the supers evenly between Sanders and Clinton, Clinton still wins the nomination.

How do you raise money or win when someone is stacking the contest with 15 or 18 Pts from day one?

And AGAIN when you quote the RESULT -- You are ignoring the PROCESS. When everyone KNOWS that Hillary has 700+ delegates in her camp BEFORE the 1st vote is cast ---- You think capable bright candidates like Corey Booker is gonna be dumb enough to try to mount a campaign?? Not a chance.

Only person LEFT to challenge was Bernie. Because for BERNIE -- it was NOT about winning. It was about PRINCIPLES and the future of the Dem party -- establishment/progressive split.
Only serious "outsider" to really challenge the DNC in a couple decades. Even Nader knew the futility of running under that phony system..

You are getting THEATER and coronations. Not Democracy..

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Oh? You’re going to create your own nation little man?

If Hillary wins, the Supreme Court will be permanently gone and Republican politics of any variety will be absolutely pointless.

This will lead to real revolution.

 

[Disir]

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.

Then don't sell it as such. You're crack whores with better shoes.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Oh? You’re going to create your own nation little man?

If Hillary wins, the Supreme Court will be permanently gone and Republican politics of any variety will be absolutely pointless.

This will lead to real revolution.

Real revolution...riiight....

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what was being sold but whatever.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

What's to ask.

They are the one's who started it.

Gerrymandering got them the house.

It did not get them the senate.

That was the same SCOTUS that upheld the ACA.

You don't have to be GOP to not like same day voter registration.

The problem with voter I.D. laws is what ?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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..

Somethings change...and somethings remain the same.....democrats have always been the party trying to **** people out of voting.....

it's projection, they think the ID laws are racist, because they would use them that way....but we just want the real voters and not 4500 votes for one person.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

When Trump loses you’ll do nothing of the sort.

You’ll only continue to contrive and propagate ridiculous lies about Clinton as you did Obama.

 

[jillian]

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..

you know, it would probably be much better if you at least touched on reality when you post a thread.

there were a few loud bernie delegates. no one was disenfranchised. if anyone was disenfranchised it was all the people in caucus states who have real lives and don't have time to spend three or four hours playing caucus....hence only college kids having that time and bernie winning the caucus states.

p.s. party candidates used to be chosen in closed meetings by cigar smoking politicos. getting to vote for them at all is purely optional.

but thanks for your concern for the democrats. it would be touching if it wasn't so disingenuous.

 

[jillian]

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.

Then don't sell it as such. You're crack whores with better shoes.

you need to stop projecting.