Bernie Sanders Takes New Hampshire, . . . sorta, . . .

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
No worries. Alan can use my vote for Bernie. Presuming Hillary has the delegates wrapped up by the time Indiana comes along I plan on participating in the Republican vote. I cant decide which clown I want to vote for. Probably the one that would be the biggest embarrassment in a general election. I'll have to watch a few more episodes of the Jerry Springer debates to decide.
Does the GOP in Indiana support an open primary or do you have to change sides to vote Republican?

I think it's interesting that there is no defined role at all for political parties in the constitution. No mention of 'Primaries' or 'Party Conventions'. Prior to 1831, the congressmen got together and determined their presidential candidate by caucus. Did you know "The first national convention was called by the Anti-Masonic Party in 1831 as they could not use the caucus system as they had no Congressmen."? Damn Anti-Masonics.


Officially, I'm registered as an independant. I didn't like being affiliated with the same group as Evan Bayh. But I think Indiana has open primaries. They always ask what ballot I want when I walk in the door - Dem or Rep. Usually by the time Indiana comes around the nominee is picked. They may rethink their rules after this year.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well, well, well...My main man Bernie put the hurt on Ol' Hillary with a startling upset in last night's Michigan Primary. No poll had predicted this. I guess it ain't over 'till it's over....although I wouldn't be surprised if once again the establishment Clinton machine managed to pad their delegate count with their elite, super duper, special voters....who count more than us regular old primary voting peons. It's almost like I'm back on the plantation....workin' for the man...er woman.
Along with never starting political threads, I never dig up old political threads just to start a new conversation. But after the Democratic convention, I'm really going to be tempted to revive this thread so I can say:

"Hey stupids. I told you the Democratic Party superdelegates weren't going to overrule the choice of the voters."

So I guess I'll just have to say it now.
But this isn't a new conversation. It's the continuation of an old one. And this is exactly where you should post an update that is a conclusion to such a controversy.

Whether or not they actually overrule our choice this year, isn't that exactly what they're intended to do....if it ever becomes necessary? If not, why do we have them at all? Why not just let us voters decide without the help of those super human delegates? 'Fraid we'll make the wrong choice?

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well, well, well...My main man Bernie put the hurt on Ol' Hillary with a startling upset in last night's Michigan Primary . . . . . I wouldn't be surprised if once again the establishment Clinton machine managed to pad their delegate count with their elite, super duper, special voters . . . . .

The delegate count in Michigan was:
B. Sanders: 65
The Hillary: 58

However, The Hillary did not even have to dip into her bag of Super Delegates to offset the loss in Michigan, because the Democrats in Mississippi also voted:

B. Sanders: 4
The Hillary: 29

Net Gain: Hillary +18

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Why not just let us voters decide without the help of those super human delegates? 'Fraid we'll make the wrong choice?

Apparently alanleroyII's complaint has not gone unnoticed.

To keep alanleroyII and others of his ilk off their scent, "The New York Times no longer includes superdelegates in its primary results."

Ref: KOIN 6, Portland, OR

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well, well, well...My main man Bernie put the hurt on Ol' Hillary with a startling upset in last night's Michigan Primary . . . . . I wouldn't be surprised if once again the establishment Clinton machine managed to pad their delegate count with their elite, super duper, special voters . . . . .

The delegate count in Michigan was:
B. Sanders: 65
The Hillary: 58

However, The Hillary did not even have to dip into her bag of Super Delegates to offset the loss in Michigan, because the Democrats in Mississippi also voted:

B. Sanders: 4
The Hillary: 29

Net Gain: Hillary +18


Its deja vu all over again.

2012 US House of Representative election results:
Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin

But its true to classify Super delegates as a scummy way of overriding democracy. (Sorta like overriding the frontrunner of a popular election by voting him out at the national convention) . If either party chooses their winner in such a manner you will see this shit hit the fan. I don't think Hillary is nearly as worried as the GOP establishment. After all she has bigger problems - like her impending indictment .....and her exposed love affair with BigFoot..
Boiler admits that Hillary screwing Big Foot is old news.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Well, well, well...My main man Bernie put the hurt on Ol' Hillary with a startling upset in last night's Michigan Primary . . . . . I wouldn't be surprised if once again the establishment Clinton machine managed to pad their delegate count with their elite, super duper, special voters . . . . .

The delegate count in Michigan was:
B. Sanders: 65
The Hillary: 58

However, The Hillary did not even have to dip into her bag of Super Delegates to offset the loss in Michigan, because the Democrats in Mississippi also voted:

B. Sanders: 4
The Hillary: 29

Net Gain: Hillary +18


Its deja vu all over again.

2012 US House of Representative election results:
Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin

But its true to classify Super delegates as a scummy way of overriding democracy. (Sorta like overriding the frontrunner of a popular election by voting him out at the national convention) . If either party chooses their winner in such a manner you will see this shit hit the fan. I don't think Hillary is nearly as worried as the GOP establishment. After all she has bigger problems - like her impending indictment .....and her exposed love affair with BigFoot..


Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
But this isn't a new conversation. It's the continuation of an old one. And this is exactly where you should post an update that is a conclusion to such a controversy.

Whether or not they actually overrule our choice this year, isn't that exactly what they're intended to do....if it ever becomes necessary? If not, why do we have them at all? Why not just let us voters decide without the help of those super human delegates? 'Fraid we'll make the wrong choice?




See !
alanleroyII just doesn't get it: Super Delegates will do what is right for the Country.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now