They don't vote on the GOP side, I think they are just symbolic.

According to this MSNBC article, at the time it was written (2007), the Democratic superdelegates were 40% of the total. And many are not elected officials (like former Presidents), and therefore they are not accountable to the public, and therefore they have no business determining who will represent us. Maybe it's different now? Amazing to me.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18277678/n...per-delegates/

The issue with Conservatives facts are they tend to look like icebergs only factual on the surface and the rest hidden from view .. I would rather see the whole iceberg before I conclude the game is rigged


Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

If sanders keeps winning states those superdelegate's Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes just like they did in 2008
and if they are arrogant enough to ignore the people's votes they will lose more than the white house

Then why haven't the NH superdelegates announced that they are supporting Bernie, in line with the will of their people?

"Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes"

They haven't yet...We'll see. You are speculating. The critics are responding to what the superdelegates are actually saying. They support Hilary, they haven't said their support is contingent upon her winning the popular vote. So it seems like you are comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.

Can anyone explain the purpose for having the superdelegates? Spence, Paul, Rockhound, anyone?

you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them..

last time I checked the primarys are still going on as for comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.. come see me when the point your insinuating happens.. if Sanders wins the upcoming primaries like Obama did in 2008 and gets the popular vote and the Superdelegates swing it Her Way >> I will join the voices of those outraged.. and as i said the party would destroy it's self ..

Past history suggest what I have said.. Could I be wrong Absolutely But untill it happens is just speculation

good write up http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...llary-clinton/


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

"you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them.. "

I did, found no reason for their existence. Deb Wasserman Shultz tried to explain it on CNN, and even CNN laughed at her response. Any reason why you can't tell me why they exist?

"come see me when the point your insinuating happens"

It's happening, so here I am. Bernie cleaned Hilary's clock in NH, and somehow he fell further behind in terms of delegates. Please tell me how that is remotely consistent with democracy?

"But untill it happens is just speculation "

You are the one speculating, I am the one responding to what has actually happened. Bernie fell further behind after winning NH. You speculate that in the very end it won't matter.

What if Bernie supporters don't bother turning out in subsequent primaries, because they see that it's rigged for Hilary?

What is the downside of doing away with superdelegates? Why even allow for the possibility that delegates who are not elected (and thus not answerable to anyone) to select the candidate? Hmmm? Why not just let the voters decide and just be done with superdelegates? I'm pretty sure I have heard Democrats claim that they are the ones who care about the little guy, and that the GOP is supposed to be the party of inside cronyism. Tell that to Bernie Sanders, who won the NH primary by a record amount, yet somehow fell further behind Hilary. That crap influences voter turnout, and it influences donations.

Have fun coming up with an artful dodge.

I can't Dodge your imaginary vision on what you think the out come will be?
If your not voting Democrat I can only surmise this bothers you because you hope Berine will be the nominee so the republicans will have an easier time getting to the white house .. Because as I see it he "Berine" can't win nationally A lot of things influences voter turnout, and it influences donations. winning a white as rice state as NH influences a lot also it cuts both ways

The super delegates are crap, they exist simply to help those entrenched in the Democratic Party to keep control.

Before the first lever was pulled in the primary, Sanders was already behind 402 delegates based on who declared their backing for each candidate.

That is rediculous......

I'm pretty sure this is the same party that was pissed because Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It bothers me, because I like democracy. My side may nominate Trump. That would be a disaster for the GOP. But if he wins states with a majority of delegates, he deserves to be the nominee, like it or not.

I'll try to slow down for you. You are the one speculating on what might happen. What I am doing, is responding to what we know for certain, which is this: Bernie cleaned her clock in NH, yet he fell further behind. If that's not a rigged game, I don't know what is.

I have asked several times what the purpose of the superdelegates is. Neither you, nor Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound, have even tried to explain it to me. The reason why, is because you can't admit out loud that they exist because the Democratic party would rather undermine democracy to get an establishment candidate, then allow the democratic process to play out in a way that they don't happen to like. Kind of ironic, since Hilary keeps bleating about how unfair and rigged Wall Street is, how they are aligned against the little guy. What a crusader for the underdog she is.

An honest man! And he's not a right-winger, either.

And in 2008, Hilary got more nationwide votes in the primaries. Obama won, because like what happened in 2000, the states he won had more delegates. There was talk of Hilary (mostly Bill) trying to get enough superdelegates at the convention to change the outcome, but it didn't happen.

I don't think Bernie will finish close enough to her, for this to matter. But as TDF says, when he has a huge deficit before it starts (just because his opponent is an insider), that changes who people donate to, it changes turnout and enthusiasm. It hurts Bernie in many ways. And everything about it, spits in the face of what this party claims to stand for.

Good post TDF.

Had lots of pinewood derby action the last few weeks, scouting at its most fun.

Jim why are you asking question from Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound or my self when you know you'll disagree with any answer given by any of us..

I have posted several links to stories made it clear where I stand ..

I am not a reregistered Dem I am an independent I am just amazed that Now Hillary might get the nod these Superdelegates are suddenly a threat to the Democrat process these Superdelegates have been around for the past 48 years .. and it hasn't happen yet not saying it won't but Historical precedence shows its not likely But yet we have had an election give away by a Supreme Court I find that much more troubling based on Historical precedence.. not which party won



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...illary-clinton

Have you explained why the superdelegates exist in the first place? Given what's happening right now on the Democratic side, it seems like an obvious question. All I get for response, is anger and insults.

"But yet we have had an election give away by a Supreme Court I find that much more troubling"

Then maybe Al Gore shouldn't have sued.


"Now Hillary might get the nod these Superdelegates are suddenly a threat to the Democrat process "

Hilary beat Bernie by .00001% in Ioway, and she got creamed in NH, yet the DNC says that she is way ahead. Bernie won NH, yet he fell further behind at the end of the day. If that's consistent with Democracy, I fail to see how.

Like you, I doubt it will matter much, he's not polling well in upcoming states with a lot of delegates. But as TDF said, Bernie was way behind even before the first primary, because of what the superdelegates declared. That kind of thing matters, in terms of Bernie's ability to generate enthusiasm and to raise $$. I'm not sure how any rational person would disagree with that.

Great GOP debate last night by the way. Really nice group of candidates running for the nomination.

Hope to see some wet willies and maybe a good depantsing soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was pathetic.

Spence, Hilary has 150 FBI agents doing an investoigation because of her actions. She denied that her husband cheated on her, and instead claimed that the GOP was framing him (that's REALLY having a clue). She claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and insisted we needed to invade. She claims they were broke when the left the White House. She claimed to have come under sniper fire (have you EVER addressed that one?). And she said all her deleted emails were personal, nothing related to work.

She doesn't engage in undignified wresting matches like the GOP. But if her behavior is superior by any standard, I'm not sure I see how. Grotesqueness comes in more than one form.

Collectively, we are too stupid to elect someone based just on their ideas. Because we are a Kardashian culture, there needs to be another angle (youth, attractive, minority, woman, blah, blah, blah). This is what you get. The 2008 election was the ultimate rejection of substance over style.

You plant potatoes, guess what? You get potatoes.

Jim I feel you might be a Sanders supporter soon. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.

Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.

Actually that's not true.

Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.

Yes.

Has this been shown to be wrong?

I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

Just saw a bumper sticker-

I trust gas station sushi more than Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not going to happen, but the guy is honest. No deception, no word-smithing, what you see is what you get. They can all learn that from him.

"Actually that's not true. "

Oh, it's NOT TRUE that Hilary said there were WMDs in Iraq?


Text from her speech, video attached, where not only did she say he was rebuilding his WMDs, but that he also had ties to Al Queda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

You want to reconsider your statement that what I said is 'not true', you thoughtless apologist?

What the hell are you talking about?

As to the sniper thing, what was your defense, exactly? I know you didn't criticize her, because you cannot criticize her. Did someone in the GOP hypnotize her?

No idea why my text is showing up underlined, but you get the drift.

"Not sure the 150 number is real "

Now you are.

http://conservativeintel.com/2016/01/12/35478/

"Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public "

Then maybe it's not a good idea to (1) marry an immoral ghoul who can't keep his fly closed for 15 seconds, and (2) living your life in the public eye.

"to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy. "

So there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do you and she buy your tin-foil hats at the same store? What's your proof of this, exactly? IS she receiving treatment that's all that different from what, say, Sarah Palin received?


"Yes (I addressed the sniper claim)".

Can you refresh our memory, please? Did the vast right wing conspiracy set her up here too?

" think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results"

Ahh, everyone does it, so it's OK. Unless you are a hypocrite then, you shouldn't be making any personal attacks against any conservatives, right? If it's OK for her to do it, it's OK for them too, right? And did George Bush have so much baggage? Nope.

"The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all"

Maybe. Or maybe it speaks to the fact that at the national level, your party has become almost satanic in terms of what it believes. Not long ago, partial birth abortion was shunned by most democrats. Hilary has no such quarrel with slaughtering a baby right up until the last second. Congrats. A serial liar, a ghoul who supports infanticide, a self described "feminist" who nonetheless attacks all the women who claim to have been abused by her husband. Yuck.

Actually you said she insisted we needed to invade. Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action. As to her statements about WMD or links to al Qaeda, I'd note the obvious, that she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war.

She said "any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast mine WITH CONVICTION"

Conviction means, she is "convinced" that it's the necessary thing to do, it means she has no doubts about what needs to be done.

How can you type these things? Do even you believe what you post?

"Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action"

Then good for her, because it wasn't unilateral. How many countries had troops there?

"she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war"

The that necessarily means that you think Bush was no more at-fault than she was. That, or you are a hypocrite (and we know which it is). It's also worth noting that the group who misled Bush and Clinton, was partially led by the liberal's new hero, Colin Powell. Your side doesn't hold it against him, that he sold the war to the UN, and to the world. I wonder why that is?

Good lord. Spence, believe me, your head won't explode if you criticize her when she deserves it. I cannot believe what a pathetic job Bush did responding to Hurricane Katrina. There. See? I didn't explode or get struck by lightning. You're a very smart guy, you can figure out how to think for yourself and show a speck of objectivity once in a while.

Now, can you tell me why your side has these super-delegates? What purpose do they serve?

You also chose to ignore my request for your defense of her sniper claims.

I just read that the old coot has a 3 point lead nationally over Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Giddayup!! :lama: