The Clinton's have a huge problem shutting their mouths when they need to. That coal mining comment she made a while back single handely lost her WV if not thousands of thousands of votes. It made a close race there into a blowout for Sanders.Yep, but West Virginia was pretty clear in their opinion of Hilary
Too bad they both came out with the same delegates.
Btw what do you think about Teamsters unwilling to back Hillary? They always back the dDemocrat candidate, this is pretty unheard of tbh
And I'm not surprised they haven't jumped on her wagon after her fail attempts discussing job growth.
I am, they ALWAYS go democrat even with candidates like Kerry. If the unions snub Hillary, she concedes the rust belt, might even turn Wisconsin into a swing state. She should keep Illinois no matter what, though, Chicago being a blue stronghold and all.
Clinton and the DNC Are Not Just Colluding — They’re Changing the Rules for Superdelegates
Feb 19th, only two states — Iowa and New Hampshire — had held primary votes for the Democratic presidential nomination. The results in Iowa (a tie) and New Hampshire (a landslide victory for Bernie Sanders) had at that point made Sanders the front-runner for the nomination.
Sanders was the leader in the popular vote.
Sanders was the early leader in the all-important pledged-delegate count.
And here’s where the super-delegate count stood on February 19th:
- Hillary Clinton: 451
- Bernie Sanders: 19
Now it’s May, and we’re being told that the sole purpose of the Democratic “super-delegate” has all along been to acknowledge the popular-vote and pledged-delegate leader.
Except that’s nonsense.
Hillary Clinton courted hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates at a time when there was no popular-vote or delegate-count leader, and in 2016, as in 2008, she worked hard to keep her super-delegates even in those times she was neither the leader in the popular vote nor the leader in the delegate count.
The reason for this is that super-delegates have absolutely nothing to do with the popular vote or the delegate count.
And Clinton knows it.
Moreover, plenty of super-delegates — most notably former DNC Chair and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean — have said it loud and clear. Super-delegates are tasked with (a) declaring themselves as early as possible in order to scare from the Democratic primary anyone who hasn’t sufficiently greased the wheels of the Democratic Party machine, and (b) casting their vote at the Party’s summer convention for whichever candidate is best positioned to win the general election.
Clinton and her camp suddenly discovering some unstated principle about the connection between super-delegates and the popular vote, or super-delegates and the pledged-delegate count, is pretty rich — given that Clinton picked up 86 percent of her super-delegates (451 of 523) at a time when she was well behind in both measures.
Calling Clinton a hypocrite on the issue of super-delegates would be unkind; it would be more accurate to say that, on the subject of super-delegates, as on so many other subjects, there is no evidence that Clinton has any core principles whatsoever.
Not only has Sanders not changed his unfavorable view of super-delegates, his position on super-delegates tracks with how the Party itself treats these individuals: as people who, per Luis Miranda and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, cannot and do not vote, and therefore cannot and must not be tallied, prior to the Party’s convention in Philadelphia this July.
the DNC has told the media that super-delegates can’t and don’t get tallied for purposes of declaring a nominee until July; Sanders has taken the same view; yet the DNC has since April, we now learn, been working with the Clinton camp behind the scenes to have the Democratic primary declared over on June 7th.
the media has consistently reported on Hillary Clinton’s efforts to reach out to Sanders voters;
the media is unable to provide any example of this happening other than Clinton gamely refusing to call for her opponent’s concession a month earlier than she conceded in 2008;
Clinton’s camp in fact said it planned to “disqualify” Sanders from the presidency,
that his campaign was “destructive”,
that he could go “ himself”, and
that its most likely VP nominee was a moderate with no ties to the progressive movement whatsoever.
Quite the olive branch.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...superdelegates
^ I sense extreme butthurt coming from article writer.
Bernie math is the bomb.
Polls: Sanders has more potential to beat Trump
Recent polls have demonstrated that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders holds a much higher potential to defeat Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in an election than Hillary Clinton, altough the latter is the Democratic party's front-runner.
The Reuters news agency, RealClearPolitics, a US non-partisan polling data aggregator, are among the organisations that have released ratings indicating that Sanders would have the upperhand in the battle for the White House over Clinton.
Clinton has so far won 1,716 delegates and Sanders has gained 1,433. Counting super-delegates, Clinton has 2,240 and Sanders has 1,473. But super-delegates can still switch allegiance until the July 25 Democratic convention is held.
However, RealClearPolitics showed on Tuesday that Sanders had a 13 percent advantage over Trump, while Clinton had five more points more than Trump.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday signalled a tight coin-toss race between Clinton and Trump, without reporting on Sanders.
In March, a Reuters poll said that Sanders would beat Trump by at least 14 percent, while reporting a very close race between Trump and Clinton.
Dustin Woodard, an analytics expert who took a major part in the development of the Reuters poll, told Al Jazeera that a significant reason for Sanders' advantage was due to disproportional support from independent voters - a group that he says other polls failed to factor in.
"Independents are the largest voting population in the US. Gallup reports that independents are 42 percent of the voting population, while Democrats are only 29% and Republicans are only 26%.
Sanders and Trump have been the favourites of independent voters, he noted, adding how their voice changed the outcome of polls.
"When I look at other head-to-head polling sources, the 10 most recent polls show Clinton only beats Trump in eight of them and her margin of win averages 4.6 percent, but most, if not all, of the polls do not have their independent numbers correct."
"This would suggest Clinton vs Trump is a really tight battle, possibly in Trumps favour.
However, on Bernie Sanders side, he beats Trump in every single poll and by an average margin of 14.1%. Again, if Independents were adjusted, his margin might be even larger."
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/polls-sanders-has-more-potential-to-beat-trump/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-14-2016 at 04:17 PM.
How likely is it that Hillary asks Bernie to be VP? That would be an unbeatable ticket.
Bernie's wife doing some crushing damage to Vermont College.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ollege/482973/
Fiorina Ver. 2.
Hey Reck, your boy Marco is having some sort of meltdown on Twitter
https://twitter.com/marcorubio?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Why would he post that himself?Hey Reck, your boy Marco is having some sort of meltdown on Twitter
https://twitter.com/marcorubio?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
And what does chest or legs at a gym mean? lol
Muscle groups to work out, but I don't know what he's on about. I think he accepted that his political career is over, tbhWhy would he post that himself?
And what does chest or legs at a gym mean? lol
The dude would look wierd with muscles on. He's a complete midget. Might be compensating for something. Poor Rubio.
Big donald, little marco. miss the early primaries already
Bernie bots on full re mode.
Oregon democrats voted 55.5% for Sanders vs. 42.9% for sHillary.
http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/
I watched Hillary Clinton’s forces swipe Nevada: This is what the media’s not telling you
Bernie's forces were justifiably outraged over arbitrary rule changes and a chairwoman determined to ignore them
It wasn’t long before things took a turn.
At 9:30, a full half hour before registration closed, Lange read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final.
These temporary rules had passed by flying colors, which did not sit well with the Bernie delegates, many of whom had not been given ballots.
Suddenly half the people of the room were on their feet, shouting “No!!!!”
My son and I jumped to our feet as well, added our voices to the chorus.
There is no excuse whatsoever for the vile and violent threats Lange has received following the convention—I hate that she is receiving these threats, and condemn them with every fiber of my being—but it is clear that she ignored true democratic process throughout the day and should be taken to task in a civil, political, way.
it appeared that Lange didn’t listen to much of anything the Bernie delegates had to say;
she appeared not to count the votes from that side of the room;
she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility, and who,
if they were allowed to stay, would have given Bernie more delegates than Hillary;
she didn’t allow for a “minority report”;
she cut off microphones when people challenged her.
When I read news stories about what happened that day, I don’t recognize much of what is being reported—while there was plenty of chaos,
I witnessed no violence (nor did my husband or anyone else I knew at the convention).
Bernie supporters were not trying to change the rules, as some journalists reported: they were justifiably outraged when
the chairperson changed the rules without a majority vote,
and then more outraged when, later,
after a motion for a delegate recount, she shut the whole convention down with a pound of the gavel and
threatened arrest to anyone who stayed in the room.
So many of the news reports of the convention feel like gaslighting in that regard—stories trying to make it sound as if the Bernie delegates were a bunch of crazy nutjobs, when all they wanted was to be heard and counted.
I know many Bernie supporters who would have voted for Hillary changed their minds after what they experienced that day,
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/20/i_wa...t_telling_you/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-20-2016 at 06:21 AM.
^Maybe his re ed supporters should learn how to properly file paperworks before having a meltdown?
"That lead was only possible because state officials disqualified 56 Sanders-supporting delegates who had filled out incorrect paperwork or hadn't registered as Democrats in time, the Sun reported. (Fewer than 10 Clinton delegates were similarly disqualified.)"
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11680904/bernie-sanders-nevada-convention
It hasn't been the first time where a bloc of his supporters either forgot or was to late changing their affiliation to democrats. They're called Bernie bots for a reason.
Shock Poll: Sanders Ahead of Trump by 15 Points, Hillary Just by 3
A major national poll has some surprising numbers in it.
A shocker. A new NBC News/Wall St Journal poll has Bernie up 54 to 39 over Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, according to the same poll, Hillary Clinton no longer has a double digit lead over Donald Trump like she did just a month ago -- her lead over Trump is just 3 points.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...-clintons-lead
Please ignore this poll, (C)NBC and WSJ are well-known as extremist left wing socialist groups.
Oprah would probably beat Trump too but she's not going to be the Democratic nominee either.
You're cheering for democratic obstructionism?
The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a previous statement, the campaign detailed several allegations of misconduct from the state party, which we considered as part of this fact-check. "At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," the campaign said in that statement.However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaignsThe Sanders campaign later alleged that Lange refused to accept pe ions to change the rules, which is inaccurateIn an interview, Lange said the board received a handful of pe ions to change the convention rules but not all of them met the requirement to have signatures by 20 percent of convention goers.
Lange said the proper procedure for an amendment to the rules would have been during a short period for public comment before the temporary rules were adopted as permanent.
None of the three Sanders supporters who spoke, including Nevada superdelegate Erin Bilbray, made any motion to amend the rules during that time, so they were approved as written.
Volunteers circulating the pe ions changing the rules abandoned their efforts after the permanent rules were adopted, saying they missed their chance to introduce them.
http://www.politifact.com/nevada/sta...da-democratic/Our ruling
Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor" of the state convention "ignoring the regular procedure and ramming through what they wanted to do."
Caucuses and delegate math can be incredibly confusing, and the arcane party structures don’t reflect how most people assume presidential selection works.
But the howls of unfairness and corruption by the Sanders campaign during Nevada’s state Democratic Convention can’t change the simple fact that Clinton’s supporters simply turned out in larger numbers and helped her solidify her delegate lead in Nevada.
There’s no clear evidence the state party "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure."
We rate this claim False.
Looks pretty clear cut to me.
Sanders and his suppoters are simply sore losers.
Let's be clear....Bernie is fighting for the very soul of the democratic party.....Hillary is the establishment candidate....she will do everything for Wall Street, Pharmaceuticals and the Industrial Military Complex that funds her campaign....most Wing-nuts like CC are jaded because their Party...the GOP has no candidates fighting for the small guy like Bernie...
Cool story bro. He's not fighting for no Democratic Party. He's fighting for his own self. In fact, he doesn't give a about the party he's running in. He's running with a D next to his name because it was the only viable choice. Had he run as independent he would have been kind dead by now in the presidential race.
Lets not pretend Bernie suddenly cares about a party he's never really being a part of.
If Hillary is the future of the Democratic Party then they are just as out of touch with real progressives as the GOP leadership is to most conservatives
If Hillary is the future of the Democratic Party then they are just as out of touch with real progressives as the GOP leadership is to most conservatives
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
