Whispering 18,865 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 24 minutes ago, Goosey said: No, they don't. They usually do, but Democrat superdelegates are unpledged. They can vote for whoever they want. Usually they have voted for the winning candidate, but the fact is, the superdelegates are there to overturn the popular vote if they think it necessary. For example, if the popular vote is about to elect a divisive or "non-competitive" candidate, the superdelegates can pick someone more "suitable" instead. Yes, they do. The superdelegates have gone with the pledged delegates in every race since their inception. Now, they could go against the pledged delegates...but they haven't...and they would have voted for Bernie if he had actually won the most pledged delegates. If all of the superdelegates were eliminated overnight, Bernie Sanders would still be losing the race. Blaming them for his pending defeat isn't just missing the point — it's objectively wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Whispering said: Yes, they do. The superdelegates have gone with the pledged delegates in every race since their inception. Now, they could go against the pledged delegates...but they haven't...and they would have voted for Bernie if he had actually won the most pledged delegates. If all of the superdelegates were eliminated overnight, Bernie Sanders would still be losing the race. Blaming them for his pending defeat isn't just missing the point — it's objectively wrong. The most hilarious thing of all is that many Bernie supporters are now supporting the opinion that the superdelegates should be used to overcome the will of the people. Honeys...wasn't that your concern with it from the beginning? The inconsistency is astounding. Things are only good when they serve their direct interest. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: The most hilarious thing of all is that many Bernie supporters are now supporting the opinion that the superdelegates should be used to overcome the will of the people. Honeys...wasn't that your concern with it from the beginning? The inconsistency is astounding. Things are only good when they serve their direct interest. Exactly! Now, THAT is what would be undemocratic. Of course, Bernie is all for undemocratic when it benefits him personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Whispering said: Yes, they do. The superdelegates have gone with the pledged delegates in every race since their inception. Now, they could go against the pledged delegates...but they haven't...and they would have voted for Bernie if he had actually won the most pledged delegates. They might have voted for him. But their purpose is to overturn the popular vote if they deem it necessary. Their existence is undemocratic. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Goosey said: They might have voted for him. But their purpose is to overturn the popular vote if they deem it necessary. Their existence is undemocratic. Maybe... But trying to change the rules & get rid of the super delegates in the 11th hour is just futile... Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 7 hours ago, Goosey said: They might have voted for him. But their purpose is to overturn the popular vote if they deem it necessary. Their existence is undemocratic. No, their purpose is to make sure someone dangerous and crazy doesn't represent the party...like Trump. The Superdelegates would have gone with Bernie, if he had the most pledged delegates. Once again, if the Superdelegates were completely taken away right now...at this very moment...Bernie woukd still be losing and he would still lose the nomination, The Superdelegates have nothing to do with Bernie losing and being so far behind. That happened because he never appealed widely to the minority vote. (Except for the 0.2 per cent of Americans that are Pacific Islanders ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eighteen 5,430 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 and ironically enough, almost half of The People are VOTING for a dictator-esque candidate in policy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsTommyBitch 12,640 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 41 minutes ago, Whispering said: No, their purpose is to make sure someone dangerous and crazy doesn't represent the party...like Trump. The Superdelegates would have gone with Bernie, if he had the most pledged delegates. Once again, if the Superdelegates were completely taken away right now...at this very moment...Bernie woukd still be losing and he would still lose the nomination, The Superdelegates have nothing to do with Bernie losing and being so far behind. That happened because he never appealed widely to the minority vote. (Except for the 0.2 per cent of Americans that are Pacific Islanders ) Honestly, never seen a more fitting example Trump would be the perfect example of winning the popular vote but not deserving the presidency and the superdelegates voting against him. (Though I realize this isn't applicable because its on the Democratic side ) 私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Whispering said: No, their purpose is to make sure someone dangerous and crazy doesn't represent the party...like Trump. The Superdelegates would have gone with Bernie, if he had the most pledged delegates. No, they don't have to be dangerous or crazy, just someone that would either be sure to lose or damage the party's future prospects... and they stop these people by overturning the popular vote. By the way the candidates that inspired the creation of superdelegates were Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 8 minutes ago, Goosey said: ... and they stop these people by overturning the popular vote. Which has never...not once, happened! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 11 hours ago, Goosey said: This is precisely true, and it shouldn't be a surprise. Overturning the popular vote is the whole point of superdelegates. That's why Obama is President today and not Clinton. A real candidate can and will always be able to win a primary despite who is the favorite. Also Hillary is wining the popular vote by over 2.4 million votes. So what is even your point? "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 11 minutes ago, Whispering said: Which has never...not once, happened! That's still their purpose. Also, the guy who inspired their creation thanks to his landslide loss was like a Bernie Sanders of his day. Just saying... if Bernie had got more of the popular vote the superdelegates might have acted against him. 1 minute ago, just4fun said: That's why Obama is President today and not Clinton. A real candidate can and will always be able to win a primary despite who is the favorite. Also Hillary is wining the popular vote by over 2.4 million votes. So what is even your point. What is your point? The superdelegates are there to overturn the popular vote. That's my point. You're saying they didn't this year. I never said they did. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Ralph Nader a name as important to politics as Debbie Gibson is to music. Talk about irrelevancy. Sure lets ask a former member of the Green Party who is currently listed as an independent to discuss the Democratic party's primary voting policies. Why don't we ask a Hindu priest what he thinks of the baptism practices of Catholics? It's irrelevant!!! "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 12 hours ago, Goosey said: No, they don't. They usually do, but Democrat superdelegates are unpledged. They can vote for whoever they want. Usually they have voted for the winning candidate, but the fact is, the superdelegates are there to overturn the popular vote if they think it necessary. For example, if the popular vote is about to elect a divisive or "non-competitive" candidate, the superdelegates can pick someone more "suitable" instead. The driving idea behind the creation of this new group of delegates was to prevent highly contested nomination processes from producing a non-competitive candidate at the expense of the Party as happened in 1968 and 1972. As Commission Chairman Jim Hunt noted in a speech at the JFK School of Government in 1981: “We would then return a measure of decision-making power and discretion to the organized party and increase the incentive it has to offer elected officials for serious involvement.” Party elites would keep the long-term health and goals of the party in mind when casting their votes as unpledged delegates. In a recent interview about superdelegates with CNN’s Jake Tapper, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz argued, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162801 What is your complaint? This is exactly how Bernie wants to win the primary by showing the super delagates some stupid polls to get them to vote for him. It was explained by Weaver (Bernie's campaign manager) after Bernie's loss in NY, as one of his strategies to win the primary at the convention. Why do you hate superdelagates so much? Weaver (Bernie's campaign manager) even points out how he tries to steal delagates in Nevada that Clinton took back lol. Bernie's is a lost cause. Blaming superdelagates is ridiculous considering that is how Bernie wants to win. at 3:15 he explains about trying to win over SD's and at 4:00. He explains Nevada. And people still think Hillary is running the shady campaign. Lol #ShadyBernie http://on.msnbc.com/22Mytzw "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.