Hillary wins NH thanks to the corrupt DNC establishment

[texan]

61% 39% 15 Delegates to 9 D won by Bernie......winner Bernie? Not so fast.

NH DNC awards Hillary 8 Super Delegates. 17 to 15 Hillary wins.

Dont ever let me hear any lib go crazy over the RNC again. Both are corrupt as hell. Hey NH voters your votes don't count if we don't like it.

[Cigar]

Kinda like Gerrymandering ... ? :grin:

[texan]

Both parties do Gerrymandering, I don't know why you think that's exclusively a republican thing.

[texan]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-08/why-democrats-can-t-blame-gerrymandering

Gerrymandering goes all the way down the tree to local levels........You think one party has exclusivity on this stuff? No Way. It may work against you sometimes just like who has the presidency for SCOTUS nominations.

Let's get on to the real issues.

[sachem]

It's politics. Old as time. The players change, not the game.

[IMPress Polly]

I'll tell you what, if this rather undemocratic process proves to be the only means by which Clinton can secure her party's nomination, the Democratic convention this year will look like it did in 1968. Just saying.

I say abolish "super" delegates. That's just cheating.

[domer76]

I'll tell you what, if this rather undemocratic process proves to be the only means by which Clinton can secure her party's nomination, the Democratic convention this year will look like it did in 1968. Just saying.

I say abolish "super" delegates. That's just cheating.

The super delegate thing has been around for a long time. Why is it catching anyone by surprise?

[IMPress Polly]

Because I can't remember it ever actually being decisive before. I mean in terms of who actually wins the nomination. If Clinton gets the nomination only because of "super" delegates, there WILL be a revolt from Bernie's supporters (myself included).

[texan]

The super delegate thing has been around for a long time. Why is it catching anyone by surprise?

The real question Mr Smart Person is why isn't pissing you off? Hillary supporter?

[domer76]

Because I can't remember it ever actually being decisive before. I mean in terms of who actually wins the nomination. If Clinton gets the nomination only because of "super" delegates, there WILL be a revolt from Bernie's supporters (myself included).

Perhaps, if Bernie had been a Democrat all along, he would either understand or have some say on how they select their nominee. But, alas, he was not.

It was decisive before. Obama and his camp understood it in 2008. Clinton did not.

[domer76]

The real question Mr Smart Person is why isn't pissing you off? Hillary supporter?

It isn't pissing me off because it isn't catching me by surprise. It's been the name of the game for a long while. And while I like Bernie, his policies are not enactable and he is not electable.

But why the fuck do you care. You're a Trumpeter. The worst possible selection in ANY party.

[Green Arrow]

Imagine if Theodore Roosevelt had followed domer's argument during his battles with Tammany Hall and the GOP party bosses. It's been around a long time, who cares? Imagine the corruption.

[domer76]

Imagine if Theodore Roosevelt had followed domer's argument during his battles with Tammany Hall and the GOP party bosses. It's been around a long time, who cares? Imagine the corruption.

Is that the best you have? "Imagine if"?

The superdelegate process has been around since 1984 or 1988, depending on the version you're looking at. That's the way the Democrats have chosen to select their nominee. Why should they, as a party, not have that prerogative? There's nothing holding back the Republicans from choosing their candidate any way they wish. If the Dems didn't think this wasn't the best way to get their best candidate nominated, why would they stick with it? Otherwise, it would be self-defeating.

[IMPress Polly]

domer76 wrote:
It was decisive before. Obama and his camp understood it in 2008. Clinton did not.

That's a really good point actually, and just one more reason why I didn't support Obama back in 2008. As I recall, the situation was that Clinton narrowly won the majority of Democratic voters, but only like 25% of the delegates because of the "super" delegate thing. It was that and the fact that he was clearly running to her right and that his voter base was primarily wealthy (Clinton's supporters were mostly the blue collar working class people back then, unlike today). Still, given the level of energy behind the Sanders campaign, I can't help but think that a revolt would result from Clinton winning the nomination in this way if that's what happens. Bernie supporters are youthful and energetic, broadly speaking. I don't think a defeat by these means would be taken quietly.

Then again, worst case scenario, Bernie gets crushed in Nevada and South Carolina in a couple weeks and his campaign fizzles out on its own as a result. That could happen too. But still, let's not have this winning by cheating stuff anymore. It's time to get rid of this "super" delegate crap because it's downright undemocratic!

[domer76]

That's a really good point actually, and just one more reason why I didn't support Obama back in 2008. As I recall, the situation was that Clinton narrowly won the majority of Democratic voters, but only like 25% of the delegates because of the "super" delegate thing. It was that and the fact that he was clearly running to her right and that his voter base was primarily wealthy (Clinton's supporters were mostly the blue collar working class people back then, unlike today). Still, given the level of energy behind the Sanders campaign, I can't help but think that a revolt would result from Clinton winning the nomination in this way if that's what happens. Bernie supporters are youthful and energetic, broadly speaking. I don't think a defeat by these means would be taken quietly.

Then again, worst case scenario, Bernie gets crushed in Nevada and South Carolina in a couple weeks and his campaign fizzles out on its own as a result. That could happen too. But still, let's not have this winning by cheating stuff anymore. It's time to get rid of this "super" delegate crap because it's downright undemocratic!

Perhaps it is undemocratic. I wouldn't argue with that. But apparently, the Dems have decided it is the way to get the best candidate for the general election. If they chose a game of darts, I guess that would be their choice, too. But the results probably wouldn't be as good.