- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
"Clinton lost to Sanders by 22% points, the largest percentage point victory in a contested Democratic primary since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving [New Hampshire] with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's 'superdelegates,' these Party insiders.[/B] What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"
Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do. If Sanders and his supporters stop trying to play the victim all the time, maybe they will make a run at it(the election), but any one who knows anything about the process knows that what I quoted above is bull****, and playing the victim is not going to help his cause.
"Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]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. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"
So Shultz doesn't know what she's talking about? Just a clueless amature, is she?
Does that havbe anything to do with what I quoted and responded to? Hint: it doesn't. That is why Reading Is Fundamental, it will save you making silly mistakes/
Here's the CNN interview with her Majesty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Well, there you go, right out of the horse's mouth:
CNN Anchor:
"Clinton lost to Sanders by 22% points, the largest percentage point victory in a contested Democratic primary since John F. Kennedy, but it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving [New Hampshire] with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's 'superdelegates,' these Party insiders. What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available [to Sanders and Clinton in the New Hampshire primary]. The unpledged delegates are a separate category; the only thing available on the ballot in a primary or caucus is the pledged delegates --those that are tied to [the voters' choices]. Unpledged [super]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. [Cue irrelevant buzzwords.]"
Translation, "I will reinforce to them that, yes, I am trying to rig this." As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Establishment is earning and working towards a serious collapse in their authority and power. #TimCanova2016 #FeeltheBern
PS: I cleaned up her language, because she was so obfuscatory during the interview discussion, I think so people would stop listening to the unconscionable, anti-democratic horse**** that was spewing out of her mouth.
if Sanders runs away with the primary, the superdelegates will go with him just as they did with Obama in 2008. otherwise, the party splits. not going to happen, even during Wasserman-Shultz's inept tenure.
Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do. If Sanders and his supporters stop trying to play the victim all the time, maybe they will make a run at it(the election), but any one who knows anything about the process knows that what I quoted above is bull****, and playing the victim is not going to help his cause.
"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"
Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.
I think you're underestimating how dirty Clinton's machine is and how depraved DWS is.
"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"
Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.
Very true. What kind of person plays the victim just because an election is rigged against him? Mr Sanders is just a sore loser who is resentful of the wise authority of his party's leaders and who rambles on in a victimish sort of way about 'votes', as though they are supposed to matter.
I would tell voters that "of course it's rigged". How naive are you to just now figure that out?
"What do you tell voters, who're new to the primary process who says [that] this makes them feel like it's all rigged?"
Final, and most important line, of what you quoted.
If people think it is rigged, that is their own ignorance.
no way that the superdelegates ignore a decisive Sanders victory. if Clinton plays dirty, it will happen before that.
as for DWS, if the Democrats win, it will be in spite of her DNC, not because of it.
Well, that is bull**** and irrational emotion. Sanders got 6 more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire. Until the convention, superdelegates are not committed to any candidate. They can support a candidate, they can say they will vote for a candidate, but history shows that they can also change their mind later, and frequently do.
If Hillary plays dirty? Either you actually believe that Hillary didn't tell DWS that there would be 6 debates (back when her calculus was that this would be good for her), that DWS didn't pull Sanders voting registry for a day as a (very unsuccessful) smear campaign, and so forth, or you're a little late to the game with that conditional. But I think it's pretty blatantly clear to everyone that DWS is just an extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign.
no way that the superdelegates ignore a decisive Sanders victory.
the Democratic nomination process was intentionally stacked in her favor. however, the superdelegates won't overturn the race. her campaign and the DNC will act well before that if the voters don't waffle and toss out Sanders as "unelectable." either way, the superdelegates won't defy a decisive Sanders victory any more than they defied Obama's. we can revisit this after it doesn't happen, and if they do pull off a coup, i'll admit being wrong with my prediction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?