Forum Thread

64

Democrat

Colorado Springs, CO

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

CNN, Election Center

Just to make everyone aware, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders , both each won 15 delegates in the New Hampshire primary. That's 50:50...an even split no matter how you do the math. That's the way it works.

Got that?

Schmidt

2016-02-12 09:12:25 AM

Not Logged In

64

Democrat

Colorado Springs, CO

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

I posted this bit of fact to see if it hit someone's (a Bernie supporter) hot button. One of the facts of this election is that although voters get to choose the largest portion of the delegates, there are also what is termed "Super Delegates"...Senators, Representatives, Governors, and such with a strong and long commitment to the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders is on weak ground here having not been a member of the Democratic Party until just last year. He will end up with far fewer Super Delegates, and that ultimately might make the difference in the nomination process. The Clinton political machine will beat Sanders handily in the Super Delegate count.

So although Bernie won the vote count in New Hampshire by a 22 point margin, they both ended up with the same number of delegates...15 each. Hillary took all eight of the Super Delegates. The Super Delegates can of course change their mind, but that is not likely if the race is close.

Dutch

2016-02-12 09:57:02 AM

Not Logged In

Dutch

11k

1

37

Independent

Ft.myers, FL

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Schmidt Wrote:
I posted this bit of fact to see if it hit someone's (a Bernie supporter) hot button. One of the facts of this election is that although voters get to choose the largest portion of the delegates, there are also what is termed "Super Delegates"...Senators, Representatives, Governors, and such with a strong and long commitment to the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders is on weak ground here having not been a member of the Democratic Party until just last year. He will end up with far fewer Super Delegates, and that ultimately might make the difference in the nomination process. The Clinton political machine will beat Sanders handily in the Super Delegate count.
So although Bernie won the vote count in New Hampshire by a 22 point margin, they both ended up with the same number of delegates...15 each. Hillary took all eight of the Super Delegates. The Super Delegates can of course change their mind, but that is not likely if the race is close.

Schmidt, sorry in this country nothing can be done straight forward or simple; in other words your vote means nothing.

Schmidt

2016-02-12 11:03:05 AM

Not Logged In

64

Democrat

Colorado Springs, CO

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Dutch -- I disagree. My vote means something. And your vote means something. It's when people don't vote that their non-votes mean something else, and that "something else" is usually associated with cynicism and apathy...which translates into Republican victories.

The question is: Should Super Delegates be eliminated? Remember this is a Democratic Party election, not a general election. Those advocating for a parliamentary system will find that the voters do not elect their prime ministers either. The members of Parliament do that.

Schmidt

2016-02-12 04:34:47 PM

Not Logged In

64

Democrat

Colorado Springs, CO

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Putting the question another way: Should Super Delegates be bound to support the winners of state primary election, at least on a pro rata basis? It's a fair question and in the wake of New Hampshire, Robert Reich, a Bernie supporter, is calling for exactly that. But consider this...should all votes really be equal? Should a candidate who has classified himself as an independent his entire life, has bad mouthed Democrats regularly (e.g. Ed Schultz radio show), and now mobilized a segment of voters who historically don't vote, take over the Democratic Party's platform and candidacy? Do the established life long elected Democrats who have served their country and state admirably for decades, engaged in compromises and bi partisan legislation, did the hard party work behind the scenes, etc. just step aside as a new leftist ideology takes its place?

Many of those in power do not agree with Bernie's "political revolution", that is, if he fails he'll drag down the Democratic Party to be powerless and weak. It's a gamble that many Democrats are not willing to take. Hence the Super Delegate system protects against that. However, one might also argue that it stymies the introduction of fresh ideas into the party platform.

Bernie could certainly have run as a 3rd party candidate, but he chose to run as a Democrat instead, agreeing to the Democratic Party long established rules. Now they want to change the rules?

Thoughts?

TJ

2016-02-12 05:57:22 PM

Not Logged In

TJ

4.6k

0

2

Independent

Central, FL

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Ask Al Gore for his opinion. He got the most "VOTES" but lost to G. Bush. Sad chapter in our history. It's absolutely true that delegates are the whole story. Your previously stated points are exactly correct and on point.

Schmidt

2016-02-12 06:10:51 PM

Not Logged In

64

Democrat

Colorado Springs, CO

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

TJ Wrote: Ask Al Gore for his opinion. He got the most "VOTES" but lost to G. Bush. Sad chapter in our history. It's absolutely true that delegates are the whole story. Your previously stated points are exactly correct and on point.

The electoral college system for electing a president in the general election is a different issue from that of the party selection processes of primaries, caucuses, delegates and super delegates. However, it is a good point. The "winner take all" state by state allocation in the electoral college can indeed lead to a situation like 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

Dutch

2016-02-13 09:27:17 AM

Not Logged In

Dutch

11k

1

37

Independent

Ft.myers, FL

Are you sure you want to delete this post?

Schmidt Wrote:
Putting the question another way: Should Super Delegates be bound to support the winners of state primary election, at least on a pro rata basis? It's a fair question and in the wake of New Hampshire, Robert Reich, a Bernie supporter, is calling for exactly that. But consider this...should all votes really be equal? Should a candidate who has classified himself as an independent his entire life, has bad mouthed Democrats regularly (e.g. Ed Schultz radio show), and now mobilized a segment of voters who historically don't vote, take over the Democratic Party's platform and candidacy? Do the established life long elected Democrats who have served their country and state admirably for decades, engaged in compromises and bi partisan legislation, did the hard party work behind the scenes, etc. just step aside as a new leftist ideology takes its place?
Many of those in power do not agree with Bernie's "political revolution", that is, if he fails he'll drag down the Democratic Party to be powerless and weak. It's a gamble that many Democrats are not willing to take. Hence the Super Delegate system protects against that. However, one might also argue that it stymies the introduction of fresh ideas into the party platform.
Bernie could certainly have run as a 3rd party candidate, but he chose to run as a Democrat instead, agreeing to the Democratic Party long established rules. Now they want to change the rules?
Thoughts?

Sorry Schmidt; I still think the Dutch system is the most realistic; only "votes" should count; not a bunch of hoopla around it with super delegates or micky mouse tricks. Nothing in this country can be done honestly or straightforward, that is my opinion. The "if he/she fails" what you mentioned, is ridiculous, because Bush failed in a huge way and murdered half an other country; talk about failure; thus the super delegates prevented that? Wow. No this is a weird corrupt country, sorry elections are still "bought" ask Bernie.

Schmidt

2016-02-13 09:58:33 AM

Not Logged In