RugbyRebels

UGagain wrote:Fine by me.

Anyways why hasn't Bernie contested the results in Iowa or Nevada?

He's starting to look like a Gore or a Kerry.

My understanding is they are contesting Iowa?

The DNC and its chair are doing everything within their power to make sure Clinton gets in. They've undone Obama's ban on lobbyists donating to campaigns so Hillary gets more money flowing in, and pretty much have CNN in their back pocket trumpeting out Clinton supporter after Clinton supporter in their panel "debates".

The democrats must be praying for a Hillary vs Trump contest.

Sandydragon wrote:The democrats must be praying for a Hillary vs Trump contest.

If by praying you mean rigging, then yes.

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:Fine by me.

Anyways why hasn't Bernie contested the results in Iowa or Nevada?

He's starting to look like a Gore or a Kerry.

My understanding is they are contesting Iowa?

The DNC and its chair are doing everything within their power to make sure Clinton gets in. They've undone Obama's ban on lobbyists donating to campaigns so Hillary gets more money flowing in, and pretty much have CNN in their back pocket trumpeting out Clinton supporter after Clinton supporter in their panel "debates".

Wasserman-Schultz should have been dumped long ago.

If you get a chance watch HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, he tears Trump to shreds #Drumpf

Bernie should immediately announce Gabbard as his VP running mate.

UGagain wrote:

Bernie should immediately announce Gabbard as his VP running mate.

Woman, non-white, young. Would tick a lot of boxes. I think he needs to do something soon, Hillary seems to be pulling away.

What is really interesting is Sanders' overall support within the democratic party is still increasing, but by the time it finally overtakes Clinton she may have already secured enough delegates to get the nomination. You could have a situation where by the middle of the year the Democratic nominee doesn't even have majority support within her own party in a two horse race.

UGagain wrote:

Bernie should immediately announce Gabbard as his VP running mate.

Female, non-white, young - not saying that is what matters at all, but from a press point of view would tick a lot of boxes. I think he needs to do something soon, Hillary seems to be pulling away.

What is really interesting is Sanders' overall support within the democratic party is still increasing, but by the time it finally overtakes Clinton she may have already secured enough delegates to get the nomination. You could have a situation where by the middle of the year the Democratic nominee doesn't even have majority support within her own party in a two horse race.

Not a neocon stooge either. Not Russophobic, not pro-Al Qaeda, anti-CIA.

jared_7 wrote:
What is really interesting is Sanders' overall support within the democratic party is still increasing, but by the time it finally overtakes Clinton she may have already secured enough delegates to get the nomination. You could have a situation where by the middle of the year the Democratic nominee doesn't even have majority support within her own party in a two horse race.

And even more stupidly, their own polling shows that Bernie is way out in front across the spectrum of voters. Kasich is the only one who comes close.

But the DNC would rather have Republicans in power than anyone vaguely leftist or anti-Wall St and vaguely anti-warmongering, even if it means the Democratic Party losing.

A Clinton nomination would likely cause the lowest turnout in history.

Some democracy.

Has this turned into a "Would You" thread?

Can someone explain delegates and superdelegates in the US party system? Are delegates like party members?

UGagain wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
What is really interesting is Sanders' overall support within the democratic party is still increasing, but by the time it finally overtakes Clinton she may have already secured enough delegates to get the nomination. You could have a situation where by the middle of the year the Democratic nominee doesn't even have majority support within her own party in a two horse race.

And even more stupidly, their own polling shows that Bernie is way out in front across the spectrum of voters. Kasich is the only one who comes close.

But the DNC would rather have Republicans in power than anyone vaguely leftist or anti-Wall St and vaguely anti-warmongering, even if it means the Democratic Party losing.

A Clinton nomination would likely cause the lowest turnout in history.

Some democracy.

Yeah I saw that:



I can't see Sanders supporters flocking to vote for Hillary, she is the antithesis of everything they stand for. But Clinton supporters would likely vote for Sanders, I mean, they are coming around anyway.

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain delegates and superdelegates in the US party system? Are delegates like party members?

Yes pledged delegates are selected based on the outcomes of caucuses and primaries. Super delegates are high ranking elected officials and distinguished party members who are free to vote for whoever they like.

There are 4700 delegates total, but 700 of those are super delegates. Which means theoretically if all were to pledge to Clinton, Sanders could get about 60% of the popular vote and still not get the nomination.

Obviously thats an extreme example, but my understanding is 385 have already pledged to Clinton, and only about 25 or so to Sanders, with the rest undecided. In New Hampshire Sanders got over 60% of the vote but both candidates came away with the same number of delegates because of a number of super delegates already pledged to Hillary.

It is clearly not democratic, along with the openly non-neutral chairwoman and the reversal of Obama's previous legislation to stop lobbyists donating money, there is a lot of discontent within the DNC that it is rigged towards Hillary. Apparently Superdelegates have never changed an outcome before, i.e.; they have just further increased a lead of a frontrunner - so this year could see an uprising if things go that way.

jared_7 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Can someone explain delegates and superdelegates in the US party system? Are delegates like party members?

Yes pledged delegates are selected based on the outcomes of caucuses and primaries. Super delegates are high ranking elected officials and distinguished party members who are free to vote for whoever they like.

There are 4700 delegates total, but 700 of those are super delegates. Which means theoretically if all were to pledge to Clinton, Sanders could get about 60% of the popular vote and still not get the nomination.

Obviously thats an extreme example, but my understanding is 385 have already pledged to Clinton, and only about 25 or so to Sanders, with the rest undecided. In New Hampshire Sanders got over 60% of the vote but both candidates came away with the same number of delegates because of a number of super delegates already pledged to Hillary.

It is clearly not democratic, along with the openly non-neutral chairwoman and the reversal of Obama's previous legislation to stop lobbyists donating money, there is a lot of discontent within the DNC that it is rigged towards Hillary. Apparently Superdelegates have never changed an outcome before, i.e.; they have just further increased a lead of a frontrunner - so this year could see an uprising if things go that way.

So how are super delegates nominated? Is there some sort of convention whereby they support the front runner, or is it just pure fluke that they haven't affected the outcome previously?

Sandydragon wrote:So how are super delegates nominated? Is there some sort of convention whereby they support the front runner, or is it just pure fluke that they haven't affected the outcome previously?

So mainly they are high ranking DNC positions, any members of the House and Senate, Governors, and all current and former Presidents/Vice-Presidents/DNC Leaders/Leaders of the house etc... If you are in one of those positions you are automatically a super delegate, and these are the majority.

Then each state also has a set number of add-on delegates they can each nominate - I'm not sure what the process is for selection of these but I think members can apply, sort of like with CVs etc...

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So how are super delegates nominated? Is there some sort of convention whereby they support the front runner, or is it just pure fluke that they haven't affected the outcome previously?

So mainly they are high ranking DNC positions, any members of the House and Senate, Governors, and all current and former Presidents/Vice-Presidents/DNC Leaders/Leaders of the house etc... If you are in one of those positions you are automatically a super delegate, and these are the majority.

Then each state also has a set number of add-on delegates they can each nominate - I'm not sure what the process is for selection of these but I think members can apply, sort of like with CVs etc...

Interesting, thanks.

Edging closer to nomination.

UGagain wrote:


Bernie should immediately announce Gabbard as his VP running mate.

Vpl running mate more like

Anonymous are taking a bigger pop by all accounts. They are promising a major offensive against Trump in the next few weeks. Unless they unearth anything particularly unpleasant (by which I mean even more so than is already known about Trump) then I suspect it will make no difference.

I haven't yet seen the sauce, but his reference to riots if he is not nominated at a contested convention sounds a lot like a threat of violence. That, combined with the willingness of some of his supporters to use violence against others, moves him uncomfortably close to being a fully fledged fascist. The worst thing is that Drumpf has made his equally nutty (though more polished) rivals look positively attractive by comparison.

At least we live in interesting times.

If none of them get a clear majority, their conference us going to be entertaining. If he doesn't get a majority and somehow doesn't win the nomination, I can see a lot of registered republicans going nuts.

I think that if he does get the nomination, a centre-right independent will do enough to split the vote and ensure Drumpf doesn't become president. There's word that Michael Bloomberg will fund himself into that role if necessary.

Ah. I've just seen that Bloomberg has said he will not run.

Lizard wrote:I think that if he does get the nomination, a centre-right independent will do enough to split the vote and ensure Drumpf doesn't become president. There's word that Michael Bloomberg will fund himself into that role if necessary.

There was a suggestion in the Times yesterday that the republicans could find an independent candidate. Of course, it's not like Trump is rich enough to run as an independent himself.