Support NeoGAF

[TheAutomator]

No it's worse. He got more delegates in Nevada while LOSING

By no metric is Bernie even close in this race so I truly don't understand the freaking out this time.

"hey the process is flawed but its ok because the rival candidate got screwed"

No. Read my last post.

 

[Slayven]

Bill Clinton is a superdelegate and he voted for Obama in 2008

 

[Crocodile]

OWS, BLM, LGBT rights, #FightFor15, Anti-Fracking, etc. If you call yourself a Democrat yet can't see the obvious connections between these things, then I don't know what to tell you.

BLM has nothing to do with Sanders and Anti-Fracking has been a thing long before he reached national stage. I don't know what the other acronyms are referring to though.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Bill Clinton is a superdelegate and he voted for Obama in 2008

He also said he'd vote for Bernie if he was in the lead

 

[TheAutomator]

Because it's been explained that it doesn't work like that, and it's not going to suddenly work that way just because it nets the candidate you favor one delegate. Sorry.

It doesn't work like that means it shouldn't? it's much more accurate that way and would probably also help Hillary in the caucauses she lost delegates in.

 

[Slayven]

BLM has nothing to do with Sanders and Anti-Fracking has been a thing long before he reached national stage. I don't know what the other acronyms are referring to though.

Yeah that is odd, Sanders ignored BLM, and his supporters shitted on them until they found them useful

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Lifetime appointment has always been a bit insane to me. Perhaps it's time to change that

Nope. It insulted Supreme Court justices from the rapid changes in politics and society, as well as from special interests.

 

[metalslimer]

"hey the process is flawed but its ok because the rival candidate got screwed"

No. Read my last post.

Sure as long as we get rid of cacuses all together. Except no one from the Bernie camp would dare rally against those.

 

[Slayven]

He also said he'd vote for Bernie if he was in the lead

Yeah superdelegetes don't vote until the convention and are there to stop exactly what is happening with the trump and the GOP.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

It doesn't work like that means it shouldn't? it's much more accurate that way and would probably also help Hillary in the caucauses she lost delegates in.

It doesn't work like that because only in the very particular case of a tiny caucus state with one district the math can seemingly get wonky sometimes, simply because of because of just how few delegates are at stake. Just because this particular time it did get wonky doesn't mean the whole system needs to be reworked for fear of another potential one delegate going to the "wrong" candidate. This is a completely meaningless edge case, so let's please treat it like one.

There's so many people this time around explaining how everything is awful and needs to be changed, despite the system being functional and in place for quite a while, simply because they see it failing to benefit their candidate of choice. If it's working against Bernie, surely something is wrong with the whole system.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Yeah superdelegetes don't vote until the convention and are there to stop exactly what is happening with the trump and the GOP.

If the people want Trump then it's Trump they should get

 

[StopMakingSense]

caucuses, where you are locked in a room and browbeaten until you vote "the right way". That shit is undemocratic

And thats if you have the time/ability to even participate.

 

[Slayven]

If the people want Trump then it's Trump they should get

GOP as a private entity doesn't want him. People forget the DNC and GOP are not really part of the government.

And thats if you have the time/ability to even participate.

Yeah it is one thing to stand in line, but to be literally locked in a room for 8-12 hours is some kind of punishment

 

[Amir0x]

This isn't true. Clinton only has 11 delegates out of Wyoming if you count superdelegates who were not and never were going to be assigned as a result of the election and are still not required to vote for her. They could change their minds, and in fact most people expect that as a whole the superdelegates would not deny Sanders the nomination if he had a democratic mandate.

Clinton tied Sanders in pledged delegates from the Wyoming primary because nobody lives in Wyoming and this is just how the rounding works out. Sanders would have taken a delegate off of Clinton if he'd gotten I think less than 1% more of the vote.

Sounds like a conspiracy to destroy the will of the people to me.

Certain Sanders supporters are sounding a bit... out of their league at this stage. It's almost embarrassing.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Can you only think within the constraints of what the system deems is fair or can you, for one second, look at this from a broad perspective why some people might have an issue with how the vote played out delegate-wise? It's not about disapproving of math.

There's nothing wrong with the math that awarded the delegates. I don't understand how one can disagree with how the delegates were awarded but not disagree with actual math? One is the same as the other.

 

[Slayven]

Sounds like a conspiracy to destroy the will of the people to me.

Certain Sanders supporters are sounding a bit... out of their league at this stage. It's almost embarrassing.

But Amir0x doesn't Clinton have 3 million more votes than Sanders and 2 million more than Trump?

 

[lednerg]

BLM has nothing to do with Sanders and Anti-Fracking has been a thing long before he reached national stage. I don't know what the other acronyms are referring to though.

Let's just say a lot of the same faces appear at all these things. OWS greased the wheels for a new generation of progressive activists, the kind of which we haven't had in decades. Again, if you don't see it, it's probably because you weren't there, and are going off of some detached narrative about them.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

This whole process is weird to me, country and EU wide the parties decide internally who's gonna run for elected positions. Where I live we have so called Vorzugsstimmen (preferential votes) in addition that can influence mandates of single candidates.

The american way is entertaining but sounds like a waste of resources and money to me.

 

[TheAutomator]

It doesn't work like that because in the very particular case of a tiny caucus state with one district the math can seemingly get wonky sometimes, simply because of because of just how few delegates are at stake. Just because this particular time it did get wonky doesn't mean the whole system needs to be reworked for fear of another potential one delegate going to the "wrong" candidate. This is a completely meaningless edge case, so let's please treat it like one.

There's so many people this time around explaining how everything is awful and needs to be changed, despite the system being functional and in place for quite a while, simply because they see it failing to benefit their candidate of choice. If it's working against Bernie, surely something is wrong with the whole system.

Except the system needs to get reworked. Bernie got much more delegates than he deserves despite losing the popular vote.

 

[RurouniZel]

1. Nothing spoken of in this thread speaks to anything having been "rigged." The rules in place are clear to all parties, and have not been violated in fact or in spirit.

2. Sanders is disproportionately benefiting from the "un-democratic" aspects of the system. This one caucus is practically the only one to go against Bernie slightly, while all the others have benefited his delegate gains substantially. Caucuses themselves are supremely unrepresentative of the population and are disproportionately driven by activists and passionate supporters. This is justifiable in that this is a political party's primary system and not a real government election. But again, they overwhelmingly benefit Sanders so it is ludicrous to criticize it when a single one, in basically the smallest state in the country, doesn't go thoroughly in his favor.

3. Superdelegates are not presently doing anything against the will of the people. They are following the rules. And besides, the only theoretically credible strategy the Sanders campaign is making for being able to win the Primaries is that they are going to override the will of the voters and convince the Superdelegates to support Sanders over Hillary.

4. Joe Scarborough is, at best, a conservative Republican trying to divide and conquer, and, at worst, a know-nothing. He is not someone your source should be citing. The Democratic primaries are considerably more democratic than the Republican ones, if only by virtue of being almost entirely proportional rather than having numerous large winner-take-all states. By this same token, the Democrats' primaries are in many ways more open and democratic than the actual Electoral College, but that's another story entirely.

Quoting this as this is a good summary of the situation once you get past the headlines painting this as some sort of vile fraud.

 

[Amir0x]

But Amir0x doesn't Clinton have 3 million more votes than Sanders and 2 million more than Trump?

I don't know Slayven, she probably rigged those votes by purchasing McDonalds for poor folk or something.

 

[mclem]

I admit, I don't follow politics very closely. As long as they fix the whole rounding numbers bullshit then so be it. Bernie loses Nevada.

Converting a continuous percentage of the vote into a discrete finite number of delegates is going to require some 'rounding numbers bullshit' somehow.

 

[zelas]

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasnt Hillary been winning the popular vote for the 2016 nomination when totalling all states? If you really want to follow the will of the people, with a 100% democratic system this country wasnt even founded on, wouldnt he still be losing?

Seems people are trying to bend the rules in just the right way to favor Bernie. Which says all I need to know about his campaign when he has all that money and has been in the system so long, yet doesn't know how to or is unwilling to adapt to circumstances beyond his control. What is he going to do when republicans turn from Obama to give the middle finger to him? Continue to rely on a handful of activists in caucus states? Give up on the party like he gave up on winning the black southern vote?

 

[Kinyou]

How?

Wouldn't it be possible to change with an amendment?

There could also be less direct ways

Writing for the Washington Post in 2005, lawyer Robert Bauer suggested Congress and the president simply ask Supreme Court nominees for an informal commitment to leave the bench after a sensible period of time. "Any justice who hopes that with the passage of time such an exchange would be forgotten would likely be disappointed," Bauer wrote. "Over time, a custom or expectation would develop."

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...me_appointments_don_t_make_sense_anymore.html

You don't want to do that for judges, since they should be independent. Having terms will have them worry about reelection and can impact their votes.

Nope. It insulted Supreme Court justices from the rapid changes in politics and society, as well as from special interests.

True, but with people living longer and longer thanks to medical advances you can get justices staying almost ridiculously long in power. You could have a sensible long term time with no chance of reelection to keep them independent from outside influence.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Except the system needs to get reworked. Bernie got much more delegates than he deserves despite losing the popular vote.

I can see you're a broken record type. Aight, keep on spinnin'.

Enjoy Bernie's demise at the hands of the glorious Killary conspiracy, robbing Bros one Wyoming caucus delegate at a time.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Let's just say a lot of the same faces appear at all these things. OWS greased the wheels for a new generation of progressive activists, the kind of which we haven't had in decades. Again, if you don't see it, it's probably because you weren't there, and are going off of some detached narrative about them.

If I can only see the impact of these movements if I am there, then they don't have much of an impact really.

It's great people are involved and doing these things, but they are mostly small and at the moment not leading up to significant results.

 

[neoanarch]

If the people want Trump then it's Trump they should get

The majority don't want Trump. The GOPs rules are actually pretty fair in the matter. That's what the point of actually having a convention is about. It just hasn't happened a while where there will be no clear winner.

 

[Slayven]

Kind of wish DNC had some winner take all states, like SC, GA, AL, and Texas. So we this shit could be over and we get to the real show.

 

[mclem]

Bill Clinton is a superdelegate and he voted for Obama in 2008

Bernie Sanders is, himself, a superdelegate.

 

[Slayven]

Bernie Sanders is, himself, a superdelegate.

You saying he is part of the establishment?

 

[Amir0x]

You saying he is part of the establishment?

Let it be known for the record that no politician from Vermont could ever be thought of as part of the "establishment". They're just so zany up there!

 

[TheAutomator]

There's nothing wrong with the math that awarded the delegates. I don't understand how one can disagree with how the delegates were awarded but not disagree with actual math? One is the same as the other.

The math alligns with how Bernie got 7 but logically doesn't make sense as it does not display Bernie's lead. It is not hard to understand.

Not even gonna respond to whiterabbitexe because that looks like a shitpost.

 

[Moppeh]

I can see you're a broken record type. Aight, keep on spinnin'.

Enjoy Bernie's demise at the hands of the glorious Killary conspiracy, robbing Bros one Wyoming caucus delegate at a time.

Uh, it looks like that guy is on your side. Not sure why you are giving him sass.

Edit: or was his message sarcastic as well? Maybe I misunderstood the situation.

 

[Lebron]

Rigged? The only reason old man Bern's is not getting bodied by Hilary harder is him benefiting from stuff like this. This is just the first time it's gone against him. Boo hoo.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The math alligns with how Bernie got 7 but logically doesn't make sense as it does not display Bernie's lead. It is not hard to understand.

Not even gonna respond to whiterabbitexe because that looks like a shitpost.

But logically, it does make sense.

What's more logical than straight math!?

 

[Clefargle]

The math alligns with how Bernie got 7 but logically doesn't make sense as it does not display Bernie's lead. It is not hard to understand.

Not even gonna respond to whiterabbitexe because that looks like a shitpost.

Are you saying it isn't logical? Because it certainly is, it is just counterintuitive. Did you mean to say it should be more common sense? Because that's what you're advocating for. Arbitrary rounding rules to net sanders another delegate when he didn't meet his projected total needed to make a dent.

 

[lednerg]

If I can only see the impact of these movements if I am there, then they don't have much of an impact really.

It's great people are involved and doing these things, but they are mostly small and at the moment not leading up to significant results.

OWS brought the struggle between the classes into the national dialog.
BLM did the same for institutional racism, police brutality in particular.
#FightFor15 managed to get minimum wages increased for some major cities, proving it's possible.
Anti-Fracking demonstrations have effectively halted state governments from allowing lax pollution standards.

We're not talking the French Revolution here, but these are efforts which have and continue to make an impact.

EDIT: Mind you, I've only said "movement" not "revolution".

 

[Slayven]

I blame the media and campaigns really for not being a little bit more upfront. Winning a state is not enough, you have to win with big numbers

 

[old manatee]

Remember when we elected Al Gore and Bush became our president and he pretty much poured gasoline all over the planet and set it on fire.

 

[TheAutomator]

Logical as in concept logic not math logic.

I am not ever sarcastic unless I'm doing it with my friends and even in that case I woulf make it painfully obvious.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Logical as in concept logic not math logic.

But how do you allocate delegates in a manner that is "logical" without using logic (math)?

 

[ClosingADoor]

OWS brought the struggle between the classes into the national dialog.
BLM did the same for institutional racism, police brutality in particular.
#FightFor15 managed to get minimum wages increased for some major cities, proving it's possible.
Anti-Fracking demonstrations have effectively halted state governments from allowing lax pollution standards.

We're not talking the French Revolution here, but these are efforts which have and continue to make an impact.

That's great, and I really respect the people putting their time and effort in those things. But I don't see large changes because of those at a national level. Like you said, as the older generation disappears and new generations with other ideas start getting in charge, we see things moving. But I see that more as a natural change instead of a large movement sweeping your nation at the moment. They are all pretty tiny and the average citizen is not involved in those issues that much. They are all separate things, not one big movement.

 

[TheAutomator]

But how do you allocate delegates in a manner that is "logical" without using logic (math)?

Read my last posts. I'm doing it with Math so it alligns with Bernie's win.

 

[soundscream]

If I can only see the impact of these movements if I am there, then they don't have much of an impact really.

It's great people are involved and doing these things, but they are mostly small and at the moment not leading up to significant results.

You didn't account for the uptick in marker and poster sales.

Big crayola is behind it all. Wake up sheeple!

 

[Bad_Boy]

Remember when we elected Al Gore and Bush became our president and he pretty much poured gasoline all over the planet and set it on fire.

How could we forget. It's still smoking to this day.

 

[orochi91]

That's great, and I really respect the people putting their time and effort in those things. But I don't see large changes because of those at a national level. Like you said, as the older generation disappears and new generations with other ideas start getting in charge, we see things moving. But I see that more as a natural change instead of a large movement sweeping your nation at the moment. They are all pretty tiny and the average citizen is not involved in those issues that much.

Abrupt and significant far-reaching changes on a national level would likely trigger a revolution, and may possibly lead to a civil war.

This is especially true for countries like the US, where the country is nearly equally divided along the political spectrum.

Natural, incremental changes are the way to go, at least in the USA.

 

[mercenar1e]

Remember when we elected Al Gore and Bush became our president and he pretty much poured gasoline all over the planet and set it on fire.

That's because the electoral college decides who the president is.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

I'm a Sanders supporter 100% and I think SDs are bullshit, but this is kind of misleading. They tied in delegates 7-7. It's the superdelegates that tip the scales. If nothing else they bias the vote of others when the media reports the numbers.

The thing is that sometimes the bullshit goes Sanders way. Most of the caucuses do. He may even get more delegates in Missouri than Clinton and he ended up I believe tied in Illinois even though he lost the popular vote by (I think) 1.8%.

What very basically can happen is that in some of the second rounds of the caucuses many of the delegates don't show up. If more Sanders delegates show up than Clintons he can still win that way even if he loses the popular vote. It's all really crazy.

So yes there's a lot of bullshit but it works both ways. It works much more in Clintons (the establishment candidate) favor but it is what it is imo until he can gain the popular vote. The whole system is a joke and needs fixed.

 

[lednerg]

That's great, and I really respect the people putting their time and effort in those things. But I don't see large changes because of those at a national level. Like you said, as the older generation disappears and new generations with other ideas start getting in charge, we see things moving. But I see that more as a natural change instead of a large movement sweeping your nation at the moment. They are all pretty tiny and the average citizen is not involved in those issues that much.

Trust me, having US Presidential debates in which "the one percent" is brought up is a major change here. So, too, are the topics of institutional racism and LGBT rights. These are truly big steps for us, things other countries take for granted because they're not as ass-backwards as we have allowed ourselves to get.

 

[Somnid]

The depressing part is this will never be brought up again until next election and nobody will change it. 4 year cycles re-enforce a lot of the broken parts of our stupid voting system through forgetfulness.