With all the shade thrown to the GOP for a brokered convention. Is it time for the super delegates of the Democrat Primary to remove their vote since they pledged delegate numbers has become very close after tonight .

 

With all the talk of the GOP going against the will of the voters if the only way Hillary wins is because of super delegates what does that say about democrats.

I think the way these primary's are conducted needs to be revamped.

I think the way these primary's are conducted needs to be revamped.

 

Agreed JJ,

 

After watching and listening the last couple weeks, I'm not really sure why people are standing in line for 3 hours to vote for something they don't have any say in.

 

In fairness to Bernie, he has won the last 6 or 7 states and really has no chance per the democratic talking heads.

 

The whole process stinks with establishment control.

Bernie gained 10 delegates on Hillary. Even without super delegates she still has a near 300 delegate lead.

 

Democrat superdelegates may entertain this if Bernie destroys Hillary in New York, but if she wins or it's tight...its over. She will easily reach the desired number of delegates.

Bernie gained 10 delegates on Hillary. Even without super delegates she still has a near 300 delegate lead.

 

Democrat superdelegates may entertain this if Bernie destroys Hillary in New York, but if she wins or it's tight...its over. She will easily reach the desired number of delegates.

 

Hellcats what your take? Serious question. Do you think this process needs some work on both sides?

I guess I'm ignorant on the topic, but what is the point of super delegates anyway, besides establishment control?

I am a Bernie supporter and I don't have big problems with the process. If he manages to catch her in the delegates that are allocated by votes, then the super-delegates will have to re-think their positions. Would be hard for super-delegates from states that Bernie won to hand the nomination to HRC in the event that he somehow ends up with more voted-on delegates.

 

I have a few issues with the process though, including the partisanship of the DNC to favor one candidate, and the early declaration of support by the super-delegates.

 

My other issues, such as the constant misleading media narratives, are not related to flaws in the primary process and more related to the power and influence of establishment interests.

Bernie gained 10 delegates on Hillary. Even without super delegates she still has a near 300 delegate lead.

 

Democrat superdelegates may entertain this if Bernie destroys Hillary in New York, but if she wins or it's tight...its over. She will easily reach the desired number of delegates.

 

Disagree a little bit here. Isn't the lead 250 delegates? So it's "almost down to 200" and "near 300" equally.

 

I don't think he has to win NY big, a one point win would be a huge win. This whole season has been one of "moving goalposts." In every state Sanders has won, he was down, and in most cases down big, in the polls just a couple weeks before the win. So the narrative seems to evolve every time like this.

 

"Sanders is going to try to make it competitive in x, but HRC is expected to win"

"Sanders is making it tight with big rallies, can he do it, HRC is still up big"

"This race is getting tight, can Sanders win"

"Sanders might win, but can he win big, or will HRC pull out a surprise"

"Sanders is expected to win, but will he win big"

"Sanders wins, as expected, will he have momentum going into x, where HRC is up big"

 

That narrative evolves like that over the course of two weeks' time, and each step of it ignores the previous step.

 

A one point win in NY will be a huge blow and change the way those narratives are told for the rest of the race.

Agreed JJ,

 

After watching and listening the last couple weeks, I'm not really sure why people are standing in line for 3 hours to vote for something they don't have any say in.

 

In fairness to Bernie, he has won the last 6 or 7 states and really has no chance per the democratic talking heads.

 

The whole process stinks with establishment control.

Actually, the process is playing out pretty much as it should. Last time I checked, Mrs. Clinton led Sanders 1274-1025 in pledged delegates, and 469-31 in super delegates. So if she continues at her 55% clip with pledged delegates, she is pretty much on course to hit the magic number of 2383 without even needing her super delegates.

 

As to why the super delegates overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton, there's a reason. Her opponent for years has styled himself as an independent, not a party member. Who are the party faithful going to support for president -- someone who has worked to build the party for the past four decades, or an outlier?

Actually, the process is playing out pretty much as it should. Last time I checked, Mrs. Clinton led Sanders 1274-1025 in pledged delegates, and 469-31 in super delegates. So if she continues at her 55% clip with pledged delegates, she is pretty much on course to hit the magic number of 2383 without even needing her super delegates.

 

As to why the super delegates overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton, there's a reason. Her opponent for years has styled himself as an independent, not a party member. Who are the party faithful going to support for president -- someone who has worked to build the party for the past four decades, or an outlier?

 

A small disagreement here, as I said above, I don't have major problems with the process either, so I agree with you mostly.

 

I disagree on the "why" the super-delegates have pledged support for HRC. They pledged this support before the race began, before Sanders announced, before O'Malley got out. At one point, O'Malley was the media's "challenger." So, the reasons you stated simply can't be the real reason because of the timeline. And I don't think they should change unless Sanders can do well enough to put them to the test.

 

I think their early pledged support was more likely the function of the supposed coronation process and pressure from the HRC controlled DNC. And to be fair, she has a long history of working within the party so has personal connections and such.

 

Ideologically, I don't care about his party label. Thru the years, and even now, he has been much more "democratic" than HRC. If it weren't for Bernie running and moving her to the left, it would be hard to tell her from a republican on many issues. I can see where the delegates, who are long time party officials, might feel very differently about this.

I guess I'm ignorant on the topic, but what is the point of super delegates anyway, besides establishment control?

Establishment control is ultimately what it is about.

 

How does the old Mark Twain saying go? "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."

A small disagreement here, as I said above, I don't have major problems with the process either, so I agree with you mostly.

 

I disagree on the "why" the super-delegates have pledged support for HRC. They pledged this support before the race began, before Sanders announced, before O'Malley got out. At one point, O'Malley was the media's "challenger." So, the reasons you stated simply can't be the real reason because of the timeline. And I don't think they should change unless Sanders can do well enough to put them to the test.

 

I think their early pledged support was more likely the function of the supposed coronation process and pressure from the HRC controlled DNC. And to be fair, she has a long history of working within the party so has personal connections and such.

 

Ideologically, I don't care about his party label. Thru the years, and even now, he has been much more "democratic" than HRC. If it weren't for Bernie running and moving her to the left, it would be hard to tell her from a republican on many issues. I can see where the delegates, who are long time party officials, might feel very differently about this.

Super delegates only represent 15% of the total number of Democratic delegates. So to argue, as some do, that the convention is being hijacked by super delegates is incorrect.

 

I think "coronation" is too strong of a term. For instance, had Biden decided to run, we would likely see something closer to a 50-50 split among super delegates than what we're seeing now.

 

The reason Hillary's super delegate support stands at 94% is mainly because she's the only one of the two contenders who has put in the time and effort to build the party. For instance, she came to Kentucky in October '14 to campaign for Lundergan Grimes. If you're a DNC member from the Bluegrass State, that's something you remember.

 

I understand where you're coming from re: "party label," but in order to win the super delegates, one must put in the time on the chicken dinner circuit, and Mrs. Clinton has.

Hellcats what your take? Serious question. Do you think this process needs some work on both sides?

 

I actually like the dem method. It prohibits a Trump type character from getting a third of the vote and walking off with the nomination. States get a second shot through their super delegates if the primary was muddled. JJ, we have to remember these are political parties not govt entities in the end they get to decide what they want.

Disagree a little bit here. Isn't the lead 250 delegates? So it's "almost down to 200" and "near 300" equally.

 

I don't think he has to win NY big, a one point win would be a huge win. This whole season has been one of "moving goalposts." In every state Sanders has won, he was down, and in most cases down big, in the polls just a couple weeks before the win. So the narrative seems to evolve every time like this.

 

"Sanders is going to try to make it competitive in x, but HRC is expected to win"

"Sanders is making it tight with big rallies, can he do it, HRC is still up big"

"This race is getting tight, can Sanders win"

"Sanders might win, but can he win big, or will HRC pull out a surprise"

"Sanders is expected to win, but will he win big"

"Sanders wins, as expected, will he have momentum going into x, where HRC is up big"

 

That narrative evolves like that over the course of two weeks' time, and each step of it ignores the previous step.

 

A one point win in NY will be a huge blow and change the way those narratives are told for the rest of the race.

 

The sanders campaign has been phenomenal and a win in New York will be YUUge momentum.

 

Shakey math on BGP today, lol.

The sanders campaign has been phenomenal and a win in New York will be YUUge momentum. Shakey math on BGP today' date=' lol.[/quote']

 

Are Bernies odds better than 20% of winning?