More votes in a campaign where she cheated and primary popularity is not the same as general election popularity. I already provided the charts earlier in this thread, go check for yourself. They were not even close.
Ah yes, “she cheated”. :rolleyes:“we wuz robbed”.:rolleyes:
I can’t agree that “Hillary cheated”. The DNC certainly granted her an unprecedented advantage, but the DNC is free to set whatever rules it wants. Cheating, to me, means breaking the rules. No rules were broken, and that action was more of a dark spot on the DNC than on Hillary. IMO.
Yeah. In the lawsuit against the DNC for rigging the primaries the DNC did not argue they didn’t do it. They argued they had a right to do it.
Rules were broken. Their own rules (highlighting mine):
So yeah…cheating.
Then it’s not cheating. And the DNC didnt actually do anything.
"*Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything. What makes the saga frustrating is that the determination of so many of the People of the Bern to pin legitimate grievances about the nomination process on the DNC flies in the face of some basic facts. Weigel succinctly sums them up:
Some DNC staffers were hostile to Sanders, especially in the final stretch of the primaries; the best evidence of how this hurt him was not in the hacked email, but in the fact that the DNC scheduled only a few, late primary debates for Clinton’s rivals to climb onto a stage with the front-runner. The events that did the most to anger Sanders supporters, like New York’s early voter registration deadline, Brooklyn’s voter roll purge, and a debacle that created long lines for voting in Arizona, were produced by state government and elections officials, not by the DNC."*
It is cheating. The DNC had rules. Rules Sanders presumed would be followed. The DNC in concert with Clinton broke those rules. That is cheating. They may have had a legal right to do that but it is still cheating.
If you were playing Monopoly with your ten-year-old son and you decided to scoop a few hundred from the bank into your pile you would not be legally guilty of anything but you’d still be a cheater. Same principle here.
Waiter, the check, please?
I participated in the Colorado caucus. It was a junior high school gym and it was blazing hot because of all the people.
Fake news I guess:
You’re ignoring something: they’re called “votes”.
You’re ignoring something: it’s called the data in those news articles. Are you asserting it is fake news?
In short, both political parties have been in the business of political race horse betting for as long as we can remember. Parties want to be neutral but they also want the nominee to be strong and viable in November. So they’re neutral, but up to a certain point.
Hillary Clinton entered the 2008 primary season as the favorite to defeat a relatively crowded field that included Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. Some people predicted an Obama nomination win, but the smart money going into that race was on the Clinton establishment. She had a considerable super delegate lead, which began to evaporate once she started losing key races.
That’s what Sanderistas don’t want to talk about. Barack Obama was an underdog going into the 2008 race just as Sanders was going into 2016. But whereas Obama actually tried to lay the foundation for a real campaign, Sanders ran mostly as an insurgent. Sanders insisted on being a “different” candidate and insisted on being an outsider not particularly tethered to the concerns of any particular party. He insisted on being the enemy of corporate America and their political influence. All of that’s fine. That was his right to run his race the way he wanted to. But the Democratic party was under no obligation to accommodate him or welcome him.
So your assertion is that there is no correlation between net approval ratings and votes received? Just like no political scientist ever said?
I would not disagree with any of that. I don’t think Bernie realized how well he was going to do when he started out. Kind of like you-know-who!
I can’t find it now but I recall seeing Sanders announce his entrance into the race. He was standing outside and I think there were all of three reporters there and just him. About as low key as it gets.
Nobody did. But it all went to his head, and his campaign became about himself more than his positions. Did he ever come up with a foreign policy, btw?
So just what is the role of the superdelegates after this decision? In layman’s terms please.
It’s not complicated. They get to vote after the first round if nobody has won a majority of delegates in the primaries/caucuses.
I am no expert, this is just my understanding of it:
The DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can not vote on the first ballot at the convention. This means if there is a popular vote winner in the primary the superdelegates can not change that outcome.
If somehow no one wins on the first ballot then the supers can come in and help pick a winner on subsequent ballots.
EDIT: Ninjaed