Conservatives/Republicans Your God, Charles Koch, Has Spoken, And You Are Getting Paul Ryan

OK.

Breitbart references "new reports".

Politico references a "Republican source".

DonDiego fails to see confirmation of malibber2's claim that the Conservatives'/Republicans' God, Charles Koch, Has Spoken, And [Chosen] Paul Ryan.

Look, . . . poor old DonDiego was just trying to help malibber2 make some money by taking advantage of Paddy Power with his inside knowledge that Charles Koch has the fix in for Paul Ryan. He could get 10/1 ! ! !
In fact, DonDiego still encourages malibber2 to place such a bet, . . . and for a lot of money too.

DonDiego, himself, is unlikely to place such a wager, . . . mostly because Mr. Koch's spokesperson claims malibber2's inside knowledge is not true. And DonDiego cannot find any source with a name attached to the assertion about Mr. Koch.

The truth of the matter is this.....whether you are a Democrat or a Republican the one thing we learned this cycle is that your vote really doesn't much matter. As an example, the Socialist waxed Liarry in NH in a huge fashion. But in the end, Liarry got as many delegates as Socialist. Doesn't make any sense, but the Dem Party is controlling who gets what.
The Reps are no better......as evidenced by Cruz scoffing up as many Trump delegates as possible.

For my part, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. Whoever gets the nod on the Republican side is light years better for me than anything the Dems have to offer. Does that mean I'd vote Trump? He's not my first choice, and I didn't vote Trump when I was offered my chance to vote here in Illinois. But as terrible a candidate as he is, I'd vote for a Schnauzer before I'd vote Liarry or Socialist. I expect everyone's mileage will vary, but we are all getting hosed by the 2 dominant political parties.

How many Socialist backers will stay home if Liarry gets the nod?
How many Trump backers will stay home if he doesn't get the nod?

First, "Liarry" just doesn't work - it doesn't scan. Now "Nobama" was actually kind of clever but not your latest. I'd go back to the drawing boards on that one.

Second, Bernie Sanders got 15 pledged delegates out of New Hampshire while HillofBeans got nine. And anyone coming into either convention with a majority of pledged delegates is going to be their party's nominee. And anyone telling you that the superdelegates will overrule them is either stupid or dishonest. Of course that includes DonDiego and (unfortunately) Bernie Sander's campaign manager, and don't they make a cute couple?

And barring a third party run, Republicans will vote for the Republican nominee, and Democrats will vote for Hillzapoppin. Remember the PUMAs, the Hitlery supporters who said they weren't going to vote for Obama in 2008? Yeah, they came home in the end too.

Oh, and Republican voters who call themselves independents will vote for the Republican, and Democrats who call themselves independents will vote for Hellery. And what about true independent voters? Don't worry about them, because they basically don't exist.

DonDiego doubts that he has ever told anyone that the super delegates will "overrule" pledged delegates. n.b. This does not ipso facto prove that DonDiego is not stupid or dishonest, . . . but it may lend some weight to one side of that argument.
Oh, and DonDiego cannot deny that Bernie Sanders' Campaign manager is kinda cute, . . . but he does deny that they have ever been an "item".

As usual, Forkie is being disingenuous. NH voted 60/38 for Socialist, but the delegate counts are reported to be 15 Socialist, 15 Liarry.

Forkie, I find it amusing that you would even hint that Liarry doesn't have a very serious shortcoming when it comes to truth telling. But that's what elections are all about in the end anyway.

Bernie got 15 pledged delegates and Hillarity got nine pledged delegates. On the first ballot at either convention, pledged delegates are the only ones that will matter, and to believe otherwise is stupid or dishonest (please see above).

And is "disingenuous" the word of the day with you and Roulette Man. Please look it up, and then stop abusing it. The word would be "dishonest" if I was, but I wasn't.

In many of these primaries, popular vote is irrelevant.
In NY, the delegates are partially awarded by Congressional Districts. Whoever wins the popular vote in the Disrict gets, let's say,eight delegates. In Washington Heights, the Republican winner might get as few as 5000 votes as the District is overwhelming Democratic. In Suffolk County, you might need 80,000 to win the district. In theory, one can win the popular vote by a large margin, but get less delegates because your opponent won more of the smaller districts.

Forkie, check your dictionary because, again as usual, you would be incorrect. Disingenuous means lacking in frankness, candor or sincerity. All of which seem to fit you very well, thank you.
The delegates WERE 15 - 9 but you have to add the super delegates Forkie....certainly, lacking in frankness, candor AND sincerity. Liarry remarkably got 6 of 7 super delegates in a state where she got swamped! Kinda reminded me of the Iowa coin flips. Super delegates are simply party bigwigs who can vote any way they care to, voters be damned.
Quite a nice system, where the voting really doesn't matter much IF you are wealthy and connected.

The Republicans are no better. They want to stand the vote on its head to try to avoid both Trump and Cruz. Should be interesting to see where this one lands, probably in a courtroom somewhere.

DonDiego understands lvfritz's frustration with the process, . . . and recognizes that both major parties have skewed the delegate process.

However, both processes are nothing more than the rules agreed to within each Party for selecting Party Nominees.
If one opines they are unfair, . . . the appropriate action is to become active within the Party of one's choice to change the process.

Or choose to participate in the Party which has a more fair process, if it's that important to one.
Or choose to participate in the Party which has the more skewed process, if that's more important to one.

DonDiego doubts that the Courts will or should get involved in how a voluntary organization decides how to select its nominees. It is not a matter of Law, just a matter of procedure in a voluntary organization.

To contrast, . . . some folks find the Electoral College unfair, because among other objections it gives less populous States more "Electors-per-person" than more populous States.
If one objects to this one could take it to the Courtroom.
However, DonDiego opines it would not get far, because the procedure is clearly spelled out within the US Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
n.b. The history of how Electors have been chosen in various States over time IAW "such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is quite interesting.

I think Fritz thinks the delegates should be handed out according to his wishes.Rules, like bones are meant to be broken. i'm not sure what the problem with Super-Delegates is, except they aren't voting his way.