Sanders has won 19 states to Hillarys 23?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

 

[ogibillm]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

 

[ogibillm]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

questionable? like i said, i believe sanders has a greater portion of pledged delegates than the popular vote. if anyone should be upset on the democratic side it should be clinton.

the republican contest did have issues, i'll give you that. a little consistency in the rules would help with transparency.

also - why do the states pay for primaries?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

questionable? like i said, i believe sanders has a greater portion of pledged delegates than the popular vote. if anyone should be upset on the democratic side it should be clinton.

the republican contest did have issues, i'll give you that. a little consistency in the rules would help with transparency.

also - why do the states pay for primaries?

What is it with you lefties & the popular vote bullshit?
I would've thought you would have learned that lesson when Gore lost.

 

[ogibillm]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

questionable? like i said, i believe sanders has a greater portion of pledged delegates than the popular vote. if anyone should be upset on the democratic side it should be clinton.

the republican contest did have issues, i'll give you that. a little consistency in the rules would help with transparency.

also - why do the states pay for primaries?

What is it with you lefties & the popular vote bullshit?
I would've thought you would have learned that lesson when Gore lost.

well for one, we aren't talking about the general election. so if you don't want to talk about the popular vote that's fine but it seems pretty relevant when looking at who the people of a national party want to choose to represent them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

questionable? like i said, i believe sanders has a greater portion of pledged delegates than the popular vote. if anyone should be upset on the democratic side it should be clinton.

the republican contest did have issues, i'll give you that. a little consistency in the rules would help with transparency.

also - why do the states pay for primaries?

What is it with you lefties & the popular vote bullshit?
I would've thought you would have learned that lesson when Gore lost.

well for one, we aren't talking about the general election. so if you don't want to talk about the popular vote that's fine but it seems pretty relevant when looking at who the people of a national party want to choose to represent them.

I'm inclined to agree but the "rules" really don't

 

[DarkFury]

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

questionable? like i said, i believe sanders has a greater portion of pledged delegates than the popular vote. if anyone should be upset on the democratic side it should be clinton.

the republican contest did have issues, i'll give you that. a little consistency in the rules would help with transparency.

also - why do the states pay for primaries?

What is it with you lefties & the popular vote bullshit?
I would've thought you would have learned that lesson when Gore lost.

well for one, we aren't talking about the general election. so if you don't want to talk about the popular vote that's fine but it seems pretty relevant when looking at who the people of a national party want to choose to represent them.

I'm inclined to agree but the "rules" really don't

Sanders a socialist/communist is getting beat by socialist/communist rules put in place by Hillary Clinton and DWS.
If you will recall Sanders is not the ONLY communist running. He is running against Hillary "Alinsky" Clinton.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

Nonsense.

It was never about winning states, it’s about wining delegates – this was the process long before the 2016 primaries began, something both candidates were fully aware of.

Consequently nothing is ‘questionable,’ it’s ignorant to maintain otherwise.

 

[DarkFury]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

Nonsense.

It was never about winning states, it’s about wining delegates – this was the process long before the 2016 primaries began, something both candidates were fully aware of.

Consequently nothing is ‘questionable,’ it’s ignorant to maintain otherwise.

And our local commie run his yap. "Its all about the party and nothing but the party!" Do the letters F.O. mean anything to you?

 

[Arianrhod]

Very few are "winner take all" states. Look at the actual pledged delegate count, not the superdelegates.

Remember what happened when President Hillary won the superdelegates to become the nominee in 2008? Oh, wait.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

Nonsense.

It was never about winning states, it’s about wining delegates – this was the process long before the 2016 primaries began, something both candidates were fully aware of.

Consequently nothing is ‘questionable,’ it’s ignorant to maintain otherwise.

And prior to this election delegates usually followed in line with what the voters voted. This election has exposed the process as being out of the people's hands. Legit or not the process is CLEARLY not favorable in the minds of the voters.
That my simple minded friend is not nonsense. That is how governments lose control.

 

[NightFox]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

Nonsense.

It was never about winning states, it’s about wining delegates – this was the process long before the 2016 primaries began, something both candidates were fully aware of.

Consequently nothing is ‘questionable,’ it’s ignorant to maintain otherwise.

And prior to this election delegates usually followed in line with what the voters voted. This election has exposed the process as being out of the people's hands. Legit or not the process is CLEARLY not favorable in the minds of the voters.

How so? Clinton has a huge lead in the number of votes she's gotten versus Sanders, yes the byzantine rules of the two parties don't make a whole lot of sense at times but Clinton is beating the crap out of Sanders in terms of raw votes so one would expect that she would have a significant lead in the delegate count as well.

That is how governments lose control.

Lose control of what? Government doesn't (and shouldn't) control the nominating process of political parties; the problematic side of the equation isn't the nominating process itself it's the ballot access restrictions that have been allowed to remain in place to suppress the viability of alternative choices to the duopoly.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

But if you look at the delegate count it sure doesn't look that close.

pretty sure sanders has a larger percentage of pledged delegates than he has received of the popular vote.

but keep pretending he's somehow being mistreated.

I'm not pretending anything. Did you see the question mark?
I think the process is questionable at best, on both sides

Nonsense.

It was never about winning states, it’s about wining delegates – this was the process long before the 2016 primaries began, something both candidates were fully aware of.

Consequently nothing is ‘questionable,’ it’s ignorant to maintain otherwise.

And our local commie run his yap. "Its all about the party and nothing but the party!" Do the letters F.O. mean anything to you?

He's had another one of his premature hasty tasty generalization phallacies.