Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

  • I agree. I oppose Superdelagates

  • I disagree. I support Superdelegates

Results are only viewable after voting.
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
The simple fact of the matter is that superdelegates exist so the Democratic Party can elect its own candidates without needing to gain the approval of its rank and file constituents.

Their blatant and now well publicised manipulation of the Democratic Party primary process has done enormous damage to their credibility.

Those who continue to support such a corrupt organization, even as it resists reform, are clearly more interested in being part of a team than protecting democracy. This attitude will be their undoing.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
It's been said a thousand times here that more Bernie supporters voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton supporters did for Obama in 2008.

Besides, you're a Republican; why are you crying at all? Buyer's remorse?
Click to expand...
How long have you been on RIU ? Too long not to understand my views and why I'm a registered Repuke. I'm registered Repuke for a reason. I vote mostly Dem...as of recent all Dem, because the Repuke party on a whole are crazy as fuck now.
I don't have buyers remorse, I did vote for Hillary in the general election. I also donated money to Sanders, 750 bucks TWICE.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
It's called providing a citation, moron.

If he didn't, you'd complain about that.

The simple fact is that you've decided what you want to hear and the facts wrong change your mind.

Time for you to join the Republican Party.

Oh, I forgot; you're an establishment Democratic Party backer, so you already have.
Click to expand...
You guys don't read them. A week later you guys demand them again.

The information is easy to find if you want to you would see that I'm exactly correct.

.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The simple fact of the matter is that superdelegates exist so the Democratic Party can elect its own candidates without needing to gain the approval of its rank and file constituents.

Their blatant and now well publicised manipulation of the Democratic Party primary process has done enormous damage to their credibility.

Those who continue to support such a corrupt organization, even as it resists reform, are clearly more interested in being part of a team than protecting democracy. This attitude will be their undoing.
Click to expand...
waaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

bernie lost, get over it.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The simple fact of the matter is that superdelegates exist so the Democratic Party can elect its own candidates without needing to gain the approval of its rank and file constituents.

Their blatant and now well publicised manipulation of the Democratic Party primary process has done enormous damage to their credibility.

Those who continue to support such a corrupt organization, even as it resists reform, are clearly more interested in being part of a team than protecting democracy. This attitude will be their undoing.
Click to expand...
Your conspiracy skirt is showing.

Not once has the will of the electorate been reversed by the superdelegate system.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
not 100% true. hillary got more votes in 2008 but lost.

but we don't see the woman haters padaraper and tty-her-up-in-a-dog-kennel complaining about that for some reason
Click to expand...
I chose the words "will of the electorate" because Obama did get more votes where actual elections were held for both. Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, so that wasn't a contest between Obama and Clinton. Also, four states didn't release vote counts so we don't really know results in them. Regardless, the total vote count was less than 1%. This is a pretty fine argument one way or the other.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Buck said microtargeted. What Berners claim when they say "rigged" is a that a nationwide campaign of propaganda or media bias to everybody "stole" the election.

I don't know anything about Buck's claim, maybe he's being ironic. From what you said, you are pretty slow on the uptake. Recall that Bernie lost because Clinton mopped the floor with him in the south and elsewhere by getting 75% of the Black vote. From what you said, you can't tell the difference between microtargeted and the idiotic claim made by your kind that black people were more susceptible than white people to nation-wide media bias. Also your kind make other idiotic claims that black people are more susceptible to other BS such as a single leaked debate question or the newest trigger for you guys regarding Clinton's campaign taking control of the DNC during the primary season.
Click to expand...
'your kind'?.you need psychological assistance immediately, pompous ass.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
And none of this changes my position in the slightest about stupid delegates.

I sure thought it was funny that they ALL came out against Bernie's campaign from the very beginning.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there is literally zero truth to that statement, it is just a lie, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Really? Then why did they constantly mention it on every network, starting in February?

Dementia would explain your selective memory loss, as well as your anger management issues.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
not 100% true. hillary got more votes in 2008 but lost.

but we don't see the woman haters padaraper and tty-her-up-in-a-dog-kennel complaining about that for some reason
Click to expand...
A Democrat wanted to pass the TPP, yet somehow you still think they have your interest in mind.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I sure thought it was funny that they ALL came out against Bernie's campaign from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
What you said was demonstrably false, just like when you claimed victory margins were not reported
Click to expand...
Exaggeration is a characteristic of Narcissists and those with Histrionic personality disorder. ttyerup exhibits the behavior of both.

Feb 10, 2016:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066

Sanders had people at the committee where the rules for superdelegates were changed. They agreed to the changes and said they were satisfied with them. It doesn't matter to the flat earth society calling itself Sanders supporters.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Exaggeration is a characteristic of Narcissists and those with Histrionic personality disorder. ttyerup exhibits the behavior of both.

Feb 10, 2016:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066

Sanders had people at the committee where the rules for superdelegates were changed. They agreed to the changes and said they were satisfied with them. It doesn't matter to the flat earth society calling itself Sanders supporters.
Click to expand...
And what choice did they have?

You'd go along with it too if the alternative was being out in the cold altogether.

Stop making the assumption that I'm a 'die hard Bernie fan all the way'. I support him because of what he stands for; I'm not loyal to a team, I'm loyal to the cause.

I realize this is a subtle distinction that's lost on many here.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
And what choice did they have?

You'd go along with it too if the alternative was being out in the cold altogether.

Stop making the assumption that I'm a 'die hard Bernie fan all the way'. I support him because of what he stands for; I'm not loyal to a team, I'm loyal to the cause.

I realize this is a subtle distinction that's lost on many here.
Click to expand...
I'm stating the fact that Bernie had supporters at the table and they said they were satisfied with the result. If you want to burrow your tender psyche in a fake "rigged" conspiracy theory that now includes Bernie being forced to accept the terms, you go right ahead. That's your story, and not based upon observable, verifiable information.

I don't believe that Bernie would settle if he thought that progress had not been made. Making progress is what Progressives do. That's the implication of the term. Your cause is "hold my breath and turn purple if I don't get everything I want right now". You have no wisdom, just wants.

Bernie is a good politician but not a great one. He's not leading a cause, he's trying to jump start progress towards getting a few things fixed before he closes out a mediocre career. That's admirable. I think some of the people who are part of the "Our Revolution" reform effort show indications that they are better than Sanders is. If so, some good will come from his reform effort too.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm stating the fact that Bernie had supporters at the table and they said they were satisfied with the result. If you want to burrow your tender psyche in a fake "rigged" conspiracy theory that now includes Bernie being forced to accept the terms, you go right ahead. That's your story, and not based upon observable, verifiable information.

I don't believe that Bernie would settle if he thought that progress had not been made. Making progress is what Progressives do. That's the implication of the term. Your cause is "hold my breath and turn purple if I don't get everything I want right now". You have no wisdom, just wants.

Bernie is a good politician but not a great one. He's not leading a cause, he's trying to jump start progress towards getting a few things fixed before he closes out a mediocre career. That's admirable. I think some of the people who are part of the "Our Revolution" reform effort show indications that they are better than Sanders is. If so, some good will come from his reform effort too.
Click to expand...
I think you're cherry picking your 'verifiable information'.

Your constant mischaracterizations of my positions do nothing to prove your points.

I've said that I'm pushing hard to the Left, because that's the direction I believe our country needs to go- and I'm certainly far from satisfied. Are you?

I'll take whatever progress is made but it won't stop me from continuing to push for more others- especially now that we're gaining traction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top