Angelus Errare
Banned
Man Bernie supporters have been showing their lack of knowledge like it's a badge of honor lately.
Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
Momentum does not exist in this primary process. HIllary didn't have it after all of her wins in a row. Why do you think that a win in the smallest state in the union is somehow going to shift the dynamics?
Losing candidates still win races. Obama lost West Virginia by a huge margin *after*the outcome was over in 2008.
Why does this magic momentum fairy only apply to Sanders, and never HIllary Why doesn't it seem to have any impact on the polls or results? Why does it override all the actual votes that have taken place?
Bubblicious
Member
The Hillary camp will always come out in support of the winner because in the end they want to maintain party unity. It's essential for this election though as the GOP control the Senate, the House and most State Legislatures and Governorships and the last thing needed is petty divisions (also Supreme Court).
It's also why I feel she's a better candidate as she supports downticket races and the party as a whole which is why superdelegates are also backing her overwhelmingly (FYI those Senators & Representatives are Superdelegates or will become them if their elected). Due to poor liberal turnouts in midterms and subsequently GOP dominance in every legislative branch the Democrats are desperate for new blood to also secure the future of the party so Superdelegates are also going to back a candidate that helps that. From what I've seen of Bernie is he doesn't have the party's best interest in mind so I could understand the party not cheering for him. There's nothing undemocratic about that.
TheAutomator
Banned
I propose they can combine three polls into one (which means polls only contribute to the end result) and then calculate the numbers of delegates each is entitled to at the end.
No. They can keep their polls but it would just contribute to the end result. Each district will have their delegates but all the polls will be calculated simultaneously.
I propose they can combine three polls into one (which means polls only contribute to the end result) and then calculate the numbers of delegates each is entitled to at the end.
gutter_trash
Banned
yes, Caucuses are stupid, especially in an age where people have non-traditional jobs outside business hours
Officerrob
Banned
Trump types. Republicans wish they had super delegates this cycle
Okay, let's break this down so we can figure out quite what you mean.
Are you arguing that individual congressional districts should not have their own independent poll for a share of the delegates in a primary?
If you *are*:
Can it not therefore be reasonably extrapolated that a state should not have their own independent poll for a share of the delegates in a primary? In which case, the complaints should not be in the context of Wyoming's primary at all, Wyoming itself is pretty statistically insignificant compared to the larger states. You ought to be advocating for a pure popular-vote country-wide primary, which would completely obliterate any meaningful influence from tiny states.
The very mechanic that causes this quirk is the same thing - when extrapolating out to a national level - that makes Wyoming not completely irrelevant.
If you *are not*:
If we accept that it's okay for congressional districts to have an individual say and have delegates that 'belong to them', why should we not stick to that same structure for states that only have a single congressional district? Adding Wyoming's at-large delegates to the congressional district count gives them a disproportionally-larger influence than a theoretical bizarro-Wyoming with CD1 having four delegates, CD2 having four delegates, and having four at-large delegates. Why is that just? Or how would you apportion bizarro-Wyoming to make it fair?
UnemployedVillain
Member
Guys, super delegates have only pledged. They haven't committed to either candidate. Why is this so hard t ounderstand
Including them only gives you an idea how they'll vote
Including them only gives you an idea how they'll vote
Pamplemousse
Member
That would be so nice. It's so stupid to have it dragging out for months and months.
legacyzero
Banned
So, by that stretch, we dont need Super Delegates. Hillary can win on pledged alone. Its a bullshit system, and its not good for voters. Very simple.
But "it's the rules."
So again, the Dems are trying to control the race? Its still bullshit. As nauseous as it makes me to say it, the GOP race looks like a better system and looks to be working. Unfortunately for the GOP. But at least voters are doing the work.
It doesnt help when news networks like CNN INCLUDE the bullshit SD count in the overall delegate count.
How are they like private clubs?
What's stopping anyone from forming constituents and movements and influencing them?
They don't make it easy, but that seems to be a feature, not a bug. Whine all you want, but the parties and the system isn't the reason Bernie isn't going to be the nominee.
Bernie supporters need to dig deeper than that, and come back with a revised strategy to build a movment that resonates with even more people. It's really as simple as that.
Samantha Bee has a great breakdown of Super Delegates.
As much as people bitch, it does avoid a huge mess if Hillary goes and kills baby Ben Ghazi and winds up in prison. Then the super delegates help avoid the headache of having to deal with the fallout.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This is like the one caucus that hasn't benefitted Sanders. I'm not too teary eyed
User 463088
Banned
Superdelegates also have a latent function. They require that the person who wins the nomination actually have support from the elected officials that make up the party. A President who would be opposed by their own party's Senators and Congresspeople is absolutely useless. It's important that a candidate, you know, have a coalition to help them govern.
We don't always need Super Delegates, but we have them because:
The super delegates are throwing their support behind Hillary because she's winning the popular vote by a large margin and because she's been supportive of the party for decades. If Bernie wins the popular vote and doesn't throw the party under the bus in the process, you can bet they'll swap their votes to him.
So, in this particular primary, super delegates don't matter. If Trump was running for the Dem. Ticket, you can be sure as hell that super delegates would matter and we'd all be thankful that we had them.
The voters are controlling the race. If Bernie was winning the popular vote and the super delegates were still pledging to Hillary, we'd be having a different conversation. But that isn't the case. That isn't reality.
So is this for future voting or right now? You do realize that it won't solve the "problem" your against here. Even you you combine all the districts together, there is going to have to be mathematical cut off/rounding point. Sanders would just be shy of the percent to get 8 delegates using the number now.
I think it's because for many this is their first election, or first election they're interested in, or first election as a democrat. That's no excuse for how ignorant many of them are. But it does explain all the kneejerk cries of "UNDEMOCRATIC, RIGGED, and ESTABLISHMENT" whenever something unexpected occurs. They either didn't ever read up on this shit, or didn't care.
Tesseract
Banned
don't agree with this, sometimes you need an outsider to shake things up. american history bores this, especially when the working class is threatened.
So like obtaining the Ultimate powers in Gokaiger, you have understand and empathize with those that came before you
And the outsider has to prove the people want to vote for them.
So far Bernie is far behind Hillary in all voting metrics.
Complaining about super delegates is trying to deflect from how the campagin is basically already over mathematically.
TheAutomator
Banned
There would be rounding off but the decimals lost would be much less substantial. It is more accurate this way.
djplaeskool
Member
NPR did a really good episode of Fresh Air with Elaine Kamarck (who helped establish the superdelegate system) that sheds some light on the subject.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/23/47156...of-our-arcane-and-convoluted-primary-politics
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/23/47156...of-our-arcane-and-convoluted-primary-politics
User 463088
Banned
Again. A President is not a king, even though Hillary is a YASS QUEEN WERK. A President, by the separation of powers, MUST be able to build consensus. That's how our democracy functions. I do not think it is illogical or "rigged" to expect the person who wants to lead the party to actually have support among the elected officials who make up said party.
You I like. Gokaiger is the shit.
Tesseract
Banned
i never said otherwise. the people are not the superdelegates. focus, guys.
this is nonsense, so is the whole we suck at math thing. it's trashcan politics.
GutsOfThor
Member
Thanks for all the people explaining how the process works. I've been confused for a while now but now it's starting to make a little more sense.
It's trashcan politics when it helps Hillary but there was no 8 page outrage thread about how Bernie got more delegates through abusing the Caucus System, and that didn't even involving voting, how Democratic.
And How nice.
legacyzero
Banned
This is a good breakdown.
My point is including them in the overall count during the process. It makes voters feel like the race is tilted way more than it is.
teruterubozu
Member
Oh please. Like anyone knew about the details of Wyoming caucusing until this shit. I like how googling makes people experts around here.
People can blabber on and on trying to justify this type of system, taking the power out of the people's hands and into this politicians'/corporations', but we should all agree that doesn't make it right. The more these highly un-democratic instances happen, the more it damages Hillary and the Democratic party's reputation. You would think they'd change their tune in order to demonstrate they're the party of fairness, but instead all this does is diminish Hillary's support and takes chunks out of her political capital. The more this stuff happens, the closer race the GE will become.
User 463088
Banned
A lot of us have followed elections for years and years. This ain't our first time at the rodeo.
There is still a lot of places yet to vote, nothing is chosen yet bud.
Clinton won the popular vote last time around and isn't sitting in the Oval office right now.
Obama was, in comparison to the vast majority of primary candidates, an outsider. Sanders' entire campaign has been ran on defining himself as that kind of outsider. The later got a huge majority of supers when it was clear he was going to carry the popular vote in the primary and even his opponent's spouse has stated he'll support Sanders if he wins the popular vote/has the delegate lead at the end.
The super delegate system does two things:
1. prevents brokered conventions where candidates who did not run or who came in well below others can "steal" the nomination by collaborating with party bosses alone.
2. prevents extreme populist candidates from being able to take over the primary process of a major party with little to no recourse by the party officials.
These are both needed. #1 for obvious reasons, as it takes away the power from the voters and puts it in the hands of convention managers. Without #2 we would see the major parties adopt exclusively closed primaries to ensure that independents can't push the party in a direction against it's constituency's will.
So far the system works. If we see a day where the super delegates rob a candidate with the popular vote and pledged delegate leads then we'll have something worth bitching about. Until then it is the best compromise available today.
So why is it one side googled how the caucus's worked and the other side took the internet with howls of rage around a rigged election, stealing the will of voters, and the "establishment" plotting against Bernie?
The same side that happily learnt a great detail about the Nevada caucus's online and then used that knowledge to override the will of the voters in the state and give Bernie more delegates?
(Weird how there was no thread about that, which is *actual* rigging an election and abusing the process against the will of the voters).
Bernie is the one benefitting from these undemocratic processes. He has more delegates than he should according to votes because of the undemocratic caucus rules. He flipped delegates in Nevada to his side, against the will of the voters, because of undemocratic caucus rules. He wins in caucus's, the most undemocratic and god awful election system devised by mankind.
Hillary is the one who has the right to complain about undemocratic systems at this point, not Bernie. He's the one benefitting.
If we are going to have an election system that is rigged so that really only two partys are viable and no other party has any chance, why shouldn't independants be able to influence the party that is closest to their idealogy? After all, people already tell them that there is no point to vote for the ones who represent them (and it is an unfortunate reality with how our election system works and how the republicans and democrats have no reason to try to change that) and they should just vote for one of the two parties that comes closest, why shouldn't they then have some ability to influence?
No she did not. Michigan and Florida were held too early according to federal party rules and as such Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and did not actively campaign in Florida. The only way Clinton had more of the popular vote in 2008 is if he count states that Obama either didn't even campaign in up to that point (Florida) or wasn't even on the ballot (Michigan).
Go learn something about U.S. election history because what you posted here is low information shitposting.
Tesseract
Banned
a president can be whatever they want to be, their capital is favorability and influence, and this has only grown over the years. don't underestimate the power of populist assertion, especially if it's out of desperation to save society's bottom rung. fireside bernie would be a real force for change.
i also think it would be great for downtickets, but w/e
i also think it would be great for downtickets, but w/e
balladofwindfishes
Member
If the party is closest to their ideals, and they want a say in their primaries, why don't they just register for that party? It's not like party registration even matters outside of primaries.
teruterubozu
Member
Well it's not mine, that's for sure. I'm a geezer by GAF standards.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
cnn and other news networks have literally been separating them every single time they show them. it goes from total delegates to a split clearly showing the delegate and super delegate counts separate.
complaining that people are somehow being dishonest about how much she's winning by, when they clearly aren't, baffles me. they don't need an anchor to shout at the screen and have big bold letters scroll across explaining what the super delegates do and mean, especially when they actually talk about the differences between the two when they show delegate/super delegate current totals.
i honestly don't know what else you and other bernie supporters want in regards to clearly conveying the information
Using the numbers from Wyoming, can you give us an example?
How does anything you've written change the fact that she won the popular vote.
In the end pledge delegates decide who is the winner not popular vote.
Tesseract
Banned
i dunno what you're going off about, it's perpendicular to the subject of hasty generalizations of poorly mathed bernie supporters.
the outrage stuff is trashcan too, yes.
i keep seeing people type this re: pragmatism and the lot, it's a nonargument.
Veritigo_X
Member
If you live near the Q in Cleveland I'd stay home July 18-21.
Well enough of Hillary's campaign clearly did to make a big enough difference with surrogate votes, Bernie literally could have done the exact same thing had they mobilized. There's not really an excuse other than questioning the competency of his ground game.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked