Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
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.