Rhode Island

What a shame, Fritz! I know you were looking forward to voting for Bernie. I guess you'll have to vote for someone else now. Maybe the guy that Republicans choose to deny their party's clear frontrunner going into the convention.

GOP Official: We choose the nominee, not the voters

They didn't make a difference in the nominees in 2008. Or 2004. Or 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960...

Super-delegates count, except when they don't. Like just about always.

I side 100 percent with Fritz. Bernie has more popular votes than Hillary nationally and has won more states than Hillary. Bernie is getting SCREWED

The US House of Representatives enjoys a 32 seat Republican majority despite them receiving a million fewer votes from voters. There's lots of space below for our resident right wingers to pretend like they're upset about it.

Politifact

"By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201. "

What a shock!! Major metropolitan areas are voting democratic. Next thing you'll tell me the sky is blue and the earth is round.

Shocking or not - it does not represent the democratic will of the majority voters. And I thought that was the entire complaint used to start this thread.

Nice trys by PJ, Ryan and forkush......what started the thread my leftist friends is that an alleged Democrat, WON the election but LOST the delegate race. Spin it however you want to, but losing when you win is pretty unique. Third world nations can look at us as a model of democracy, but this isn't one of the examples I'd put forward. Sounds like something out of White Men Can't Jump....damn, now I can't get Rosie out of my head.

OK Fritz - so lets summarize your point of view.

- Its scummy for Democrats to undermine the popular vote with Superdelegates.

- Its not scummy for Republicans to undermine the popular vote with "Winner take all delegate" states
- Its not scummy for Republicans to award delegates in a state that did not even have a primary.
- Its not scummy for Republicans to set convention rules that allow them to overthrow the candidate with the most popular votes.
- Its not scummy for Republicans to Gerrymander House districts to award House seats disproportionately to the popular vote.
- And Its definitely not scummy for Republicans to pass voter restriction laws - even when they openly admit voter suppression is the motivation for them.

This has been a thoughtful and enlightening thread

Except he didn't win the election, because there was no one election. There was a series of elections, and he lost most of them. The overall popular vote was as meaningless in RI as it was in the 2000 election.

It's great to come in here to see what I think, thanks to PJ for letting me know. Where to start.
First PJ, I've never said or thought any of those things. Both parties hold nominating primaries but sometimes, as is the case this year, the vote is an exercise if futility. Both parties try to tell the electorate who to vote for, and when it doesn't happen the way the parties like it to happen, they try to force things. It's just that the Dems and their absurd super delegates have shown the world the man behind the curtain. Hillary is struggling very hard to beat a Socialist.....look at the delegates without super delegates and you will see the race is MUCH closer than anyone, even the leftists here would have believed. Sanders got pretty close to undoing the coronation.....not to worry, super delegates will save her, and she will be the nominee. Whoppee.

Now, the Republicans aren't much better. The party elite is doing everything it can to avoid nominating a candidate that they cannot control. They are a laughing stock in my view also. Not sure where PJ and Ryan think I'm sold on Republicans or their process but since they cannot defend the laughing stock on the Dem side, they pull out the playbook and try to justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. Very predictable.

So here you go PJ, I'll summarize my point of view for you. For heaven's sake, in a country of 300 million people, this is the best we got? A 74 year old socialist, a 68 year old woman who lies more easily than PJ spits venom. Not to mention that she can't seem to mention one ACCOMPLISHMENT in her long career, a businessman near 70 with woeful social skills, and a very conservative senator who is loathed by his own party. If I had to vote for one of these 4 I'd certainly have to hold my nose.....and it gets worse......the field will narrow to just two of these lousy candidates. I see holding my nose and covering my eyes in my future. You do know one thing for sure though PJ....I won't be voting for a socialist, so for me the field is already down to two choices.