|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 18:50:43 GMT
All reasons why I won't be voting D for president. Disgusting for this to come out before Californians go to vote and a completely typical Clinton move. How is it that you blame Clinton singlehandedly for this when it's totally Democratic Party cluster$uckery? I swear to God, she is a politician and plays the political game, but she is blamed for $hit constantly that she has nothing to do with; it's like people have anointed her as the antichrist. Let's see: it just clouded over here in my backyard. It's all that damn Hillary Clinton's fault. And this isn't the result of the Clinton political war machine that's been in place and growing since Bill first ran as governor of Arkansas? It's not all Hillary's fault, but this is directly related to the way the Clintons have managed politics for decades. Do you seriously doubt who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is for? As Chairman of the DNC, I find her candid bias disturbing. She is all for these superdelegates and that makes her part of the problem as well.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 7, 2016 18:54:40 GMT
Holy crap. We've had super delegates for decades. They weren't invented just to steal the nomination for Hillary.
I like super delegates. I like this system. I see no need to stick to one man/one vote for selecting a nominee. It's not the general election.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 7, 2016 18:55:53 GMT
Of course she wouldn't have wanted it announced last night. It will depress the vote today and she wants every vote she can get, even if she doesn't technically need them. Also, regardless of the fact that you seem to think she has superhuman powers (used only for evil, of course), she had zero control over whether the AP decided to release those numbers last night or not. It is completely incorrect to think this is in any way Hillary's doing. I agree with you, Lucy. This is more a move on the part of the establishment and media to lock in Hillary's bid for president. I don't think the announcement was good for either of them. I think it was purely done to make sure the AP scooped NBC.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,955
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Jun 7, 2016 18:57:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 19:05:04 GMT
It is completely incorrect to think this is in any way Hillary's doing. Just exactly why did these previously anonymous superdelegates decide to reveal their votes now? They had no pressure to do so from anyone? And if there was pressure, where would it have come from? Bernie's campaign certainly wasn't clamoring them to make their votes known on the eve of the CA vote. So who else is left? I would think it less likely from another candidate than I do from Hillary. From her, I consider it nothing but more of the same behavior she's demonstrated for well over 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 7, 2016 19:07:15 GMT
As I said, it seems she only uses her powers for evil.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 19:08:18 GMT
I agree with you, Lucy. This is more a move on the part of the establishment and media to lock in Hillary's bid for president. I don't think the announcement was good for either of them. I think it was purely done to make sure the AP scooped NBC. I honestly believe this is the most probable case. And I still don't trust Hillary as far as I can spit.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jun 7, 2016 19:41:17 GMT
I don't see how what the AP did yesterday differs materially from what NBC did in 2000 when they called Florida early. Calling a vote early is going to depress turnout. Maybe some of you are motivated by down ballot issues, but not everyone is. I think it's irresponsible of the AP to do what they did.
Okay, so as of now, they are 3million + votes apart, but aren't there something like 7 million democrats registered to vote in CA? It's not inconceivable that he could have closed the gap significantly, is it?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 20:09:11 GMT
There is a reason Democrats have Superdelegates and considering what is going on with the Republicans I'm thinking they wished they had them this year as well. The way the Republicans who have been elected have behaved as Democrats, I could see how you might think this.... but the proof that belies this is that Republicans are so disgusted with this corruption that they have voted Trump as their nominee. The Democrats may have just pushed this obscenity past the point of no return and Democrats will be wishing that they had more of the say that Republicans have. Actually if the Republicans politicians had acted more like the Democrats there wouldn't be the problems there are today in DC and Republican controlled states. How many of those Republican controlled states are in bad shape because of actions by Republican controlled states? Lets see: 1. The Republicans in Congress can't agree on anything among themselves. 2. We have Michigan trying to poison their poor citizens with their drinking water. 3. Georgia and North Carolina is losing business because of the discriminate laws they have passed. 4. Kansas and Louisiana have no money to run the state's basic serves because of their Republican based policies. I believe the governor of Kansas had this grand experiment he wanted to try and now the entire state is almost bankrupted. It is Kansas isn't it? No wonder the Republican voters are looking for change. The Republicans brought this on themselves with their actions that had nothing to do with Democrats. I would also like to point out it was a Republican governor that left CA in a fiscal mess and a Democratic Governor along with a Democratic controlled Assembly and Senate that brought CA back to the 7th largest economy in the world. Yes we still have problems but we are doing way better then a lot of states. Funny
|
|
|
Post by kristi on Jun 7, 2016 20:13:26 GMT
I just got back from voting & was the only one there. My daughter wanted to go to the rally on Sunday for Hillary. It was great hearing her speak & exciting to think how far women have come! Women kept telling my son (age 10) how lucky he was to see history in the making
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 7, 2016 20:30:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jun 7, 2016 20:56:20 GMT
She didn't win the primary, not yet. It's more media manipulation from her in order to steal this from Bernie Sanders. She couldn't wait one day and then announce it after the voters had a chance to vote in those states? No-she had to pull yet another one, announce this in the media and the math does not add up. All it does is make the voters in those states throw their arms in the air and think, "Well, it's over, what's the point of even going down to the polling station and voting?"
Hillary's money and connections has bought the media and they've been in her pocket for a long time. Don't you wonder why you never hear anything about Bernie Sanders and it's all about Hillary vs. Trump for even the last 2 months or more?
I'm totally not surprised. I hope Bernie will now move to the Green Party with Jill Stein. If he does I think he'll have a good chance of winning. Jill Stein has asked him to. It'd be a Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein ticket. Too many people hate Hillary Clinton and she cannot win against Trump. Poll after poll have proven that.
Debbie in MD.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 7, 2016 21:20:22 GMT
Hillary's money and connections has bought the media and they've been in her pocket for a long time. Don't you wonder why you never hear anything about Bernie Sanders and it's all about Hillary vs. Trump for even the last 2 months or more? On that note: "Secret win": The images in this Clinton email are labeled "secret win."Now, in fairness - this image was probably created because it needed to be on hand in case she goes over the plegded number today and can legitimately claim victory. Sanders probably has ready made artwork just like this too, as well as Trump, etc. Still...it doesn't help that she sent a "money bomb" request declaring victory last night so all "she's upset about the AP's announcement too" is straight up bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 7, 2016 21:44:20 GMT
Oh, that very thought sets off my BS meter so loudly, I'm surprised you aren't hearing it wherever you are. I'm so sure Hillary wanted Bernie to have an honest chance to beat her yet again. Of course she wouldn't have wanted it announced last night. It will depress the vote today and she wants every vote she can get, even if she doesn't technically need them. Also, regardless of the fact that you seem to think she has superhuman powers (used only for evil, of course), she had zero control over whether the AP decided to release those numbers last night or not. It is completely incorrect to think this is in any way Hillary's doing. Amen, Lucy. It is hardly a good thing for her. It could depress the vote and it HAS enraged a lot of Bernie's supporters.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jun 7, 2016 21:46:57 GMT
I agree with this. But the media has their own(get the story first) agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Jun 7, 2016 21:55:45 GMT
The primary system needs to be revamped. I don't like the superdelegates, but the candidates know about them going in. They aren't gobsmacked at the last minute to learn about them. To me, the biggest issue with our primaries is that they are spread out for months. Let the little states vote first and then the bigger states. But do it within a few short weeks of each other. And no campaigning until a few months out. I feel like the candidates have been campaigning for years already and I am tired of it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 22:00:04 GMT
It is completely incorrect to think this is in any way Hillary's doing. Just exactly why did these previously anonymous superdelegates decide to reveal their votes now? They had no pressure to do so from anyone? And if there was pressure, where would it have come from? Bernie's campaign certainly wasn't clamoring them to make their votes known on the eve of the CA vote. So who else is left? I would think it less likely from another candidate than I do from Hillary. From her, I consider it nothing but more of the same behavior she's demonstrated for well over 20 years. How about AP and NBC asked the question of the Superdelegates and enough answered yes something as simple as that. And per the MSNBC guy who explained how it came to be it was just as simple of that. Did you not think the media types wouldn't be asking the question of who the SB would support? Do you not think that once a media organization got to the magic number of pledged and SD they wouldn't trip over themselves to be the first to get the information out? And it didn't matter to them when the information was released or how it impacted the remaining primaries as long as they were first. That is exactly what the MSNBC guy said. So unless you have proof he is lying and a tool for Hillary I'm going to take him at his word.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Jun 7, 2016 22:03:00 GMT
I just wanted to say the Kermit the Frog made me choke on my cracker! That was funnny! It sums up this election! I'm surprised she hadn't gotten it sooner. And why has everyone been so surprised at these rules? Or is just because it's becoming more apparent how important the delegates are?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 7, 2016 22:14:23 GMT
It was a foregone conclusion that Hillary is getting the nomination. I'm certain the 450 Superdelegates she had in her pocket 8 months prior to the first debate (without even knowing who else would be running, btw) AND the relentless incorrect reporting of the delegate numbers had nothing to do with this "foregone conclusion". Bernie said it best, "It's strange and undemocratic that 450 superdelegates backed Clinton even before we got into the race. That’s not democracy. That’s the establishment defending its own interests." CNN - Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocraticWhat does it matter? It's her turn, right? Wait.....do republican's do it any differently? Defend its own interests? Similarly like refusing and stalling to do their jobs like in the instance of picking out a new Supreme?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 22:14:43 GMT
Hillary's money and connections has bought the media and they've been in her pocket for a long time. Don't you wonder why you never hear anything about Bernie Sanders and it's all about Hillary vs. Trump for even the last 2 months or more? On that note: "Secret win": The images in this Clinton email are labeled "secret win."Now, in fairness - this image was probably created because it needed to be on hand in case she goes over the plegded number today and can legitimately claim victory. Sanders probably has ready made artwork just like this too, as well as Trump, etc. Still...it doesn't help that she sent a "money bomb" request declaring victory last night so all "she's upset about the AP's announcement too" is straight up bullshit. Phooey. I have no doubt the email was ready to go out after tonight's New Jersey poll closes. But the media jumped the gun. I understand the Hillary campaign had a "big deal" planned after the New Jersey poll closed. So I believe yes she would be miffed because the media jumped the gun and spoiled her plans. I would be. But reality sets in. The Clinton Campaign is going to have to raise upwards to 1 billion dollars to compete with Trump. The cat was out of the bag so unless you have 1 billion dollars to give to the Clinton Campaign why not start the fund raising a day early. I suspect if the tables were turned old Bernie would have done exactly the same thing as Hillary but while it's not ok for Hillary to do it it's fine and dandy for Bernie to do it.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 7, 2016 22:26:29 GMT
I'm certain the 450 Superdelegates she had in her pocket 8 months prior to the first debate (without even knowing who else would be running, btw) AND the relentless incorrect reporting of the delegate numbers had nothing to do with this "foregone conclusion". Bernie said it best, "It's strange and undemocratic that 450 superdelegates backed Clinton even before we got into the race. That’s not democracy. That’s the establishment defending its own interests." CNN - Democratic Party superdelegates are undemocraticWhat does it matter? It's her turn, right? Wait.....do republican's do it any differently? Defend its own interests? Similarly like refusing and stalling to do their jobs like in the instance of picking out a new Supreme? Yes, very differently. For starters, their supers only make of 7% of the total number. Democrats' supers make up 15%. Also, GOP supers must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, Dem's not so much. I have no love for the GOP and their despicable stalling/locking up the movement of government, so don't look for me to defend their idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 22:35:09 GMT
I'm going to take him at his word. And I'm not that confident in his word. <shrug>
|
|
amom23
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,409
Jun 27, 2014 12:39:18 GMT
|
Post by amom23 on Jun 7, 2016 22:37:02 GMT
She didn't win the primary, not yet. It's more media manipulation from her in order to steal this from Bernie Sanders. She couldn't wait one day and then announce it after the voters had a chance to vote in those states? No-she had to pull yet another one, announce this in the media and the math does not add up. All it does is make the voters in those states throw their arms in the air and think, "Well, it's over, what's the point of even going down to the polling station and voting?" Hillary's money and connections has bought the media and they've been in her pocket for a long time. Don't you wonder why you never hear anything about Bernie Sanders and it's all about Hillary vs. Trump for even the last 2 months or more? I'm totally not surprised. I hope Bernie will now move to the Green Party with Jill Stein. If he does I think he'll have a good chance of winning. Jill Stein has asked him to. It'd be a Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein ticket. Too many people hate Hillary Clinton and she cannot win against Trump. Poll after poll have proven that. Debbie in MD. Hillary didn't announce anything....it was the media. What part of that is so damn hard to understand? People like you make awfully broad assumptions don't you.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 7, 2016 22:47:51 GMT
She didn't win the primary, not yet. It's more media manipulation from her in order to steal this from Bernie Sanders. She couldn't wait one day and then announce it after the voters had a chance to vote in those states? No-she had to pull yet another one, announce this in the media and the math does not add up. All it does is make the voters in those states throw their arms in the air and think, "Well, it's over, what's the point of even going down to the polling station and voting?" Hillary's money and connections has bought the media and they've been in her pocket for a long time. Don't you wonder why you never hear anything about Bernie Sanders and it's all about Hillary vs. Trump for even the last 2 months or more? I'm totally not surprised. I hope Bernie will now move to the Green Party with Jill Stein. If he does I think he'll have a good chance of winning. Jill Stein has asked him to. It'd be a Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein ticket. Too many people hate Hillary Clinton and she cannot win against Trump. Poll after poll have proven that. Debbie in MD. Hillary didn't announce anything....it was the media. What part of that is so damn hard to understand? People like you make awfully broad assumptions don't you. A little testy, aren't you? Let's not forget, Clinton's campaign DID send a "money bomb" email LAST NIGHT, so, I'm fairly certain she's quite alright with AP's announcement. From March 24, 2016: MSNBC admits: "We'll SUPPRESS VOTING to help CLINTON on June 7th"
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 1:05:40 GMT
If you think this race was closer than Obama/Clinton in 2008, you would be wrong. Here's some hard facts - New York TimesIt appears that Bernie had no problem endorsing then Senator Obama before the superdelegates voted at the convention.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 8, 2016 1:40:59 GMT
Hillary didn't announce anything....it was the media. What part of that is so damn hard to understand? People like you make awfully broad assumptions don't you. A little testy, aren't you? Let's not forget, Clinton's campaign DID send a "money bomb" email LAST NIGHT, so, I'm fairly certain she's quite alright with AP's announcement. From March 24, 2016: MSNBC admits: "We'll SUPPRESS VOTING to help CLINTON on June 7th" I watched your video. Nowhere does it say "we will suppress voting to help Hillary" or anything like that. They were talking about doing what news outlets always do -- announce state results when that state's polls close, and asking if that might suppress the vote in Western states that haven't closed yet. It's a question that arises every election, but at the moment, this is what the networks have settled on, for better or for worse. Labeling it as though MSNBC had announced it was deliberately trying to tilt the vote toward Hillary (which honestly, they could give a shit about) is completely misleading. I see the clip is actually labeled that way, but it's still wrong and a little hysterical (meaning the people who labeled it, not you).
|
|
|
Post by AussieMeg on Jun 8, 2016 2:14:12 GMT
Can someone please give me the "US Election Process for Dummies" explanation:
What is a superdelegate?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 8, 2016 2:23:25 GMT
Can someone please give me the "US Election Process for Dummies" explanation: What is a superdelegate? They are people in the Democratic Party (I don't really know about how the Republicans do it) who are de facto voting delegates at the nominating convention by virtue of their position or past position ... people like elected officials, party officials, etc. They get to choose which candidate they will vote for. That's as opposed to most of the voting delegates, who are elected or selected in their individual states via primary election or caucuses. They are elected based on which candidate they pledge to support, at least for the first or maybe second ballot, I don't remember for sure. If their candidate is eliminated, then they can vote for someone else. These delegates come together at the convention to choose the official Democratic nominee.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 15:28:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 2:23:58 GMT
Can someone please give me the "US Election Process for Dummies" explanation: What is a superdelegate? Delegates who are not elected and can cast their votes for whoever they want to at the convention, thus influencing the outcome of the primary. They do not have to cast their vote for the popular candidate. Therefore, there's a huge opportunity, some would (correctly) say for the party to control who wins the party nomination rather than the voters. More of a chance of that happening in the Democrat part because they are a higher percentage than in the Republican party. Depending on which primary candidate you support colors whether you see them as fair to the political system or not. Me? I think our whole system is screwed, from superdelegates right up to the way the electoral college controls how an entire state votes.
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Jun 8, 2016 2:38:43 GMT
|
|