Good news, but too little, too late, I fear.
May the trickle become a flood.
And the damn FBI needs to hurry the fuck up and indict fucking Clinton before the convention.
Isn’t that all of them?
And a man at the back said, “Everyone attack!” and it turned into a Democratic Convention Blitz!
I saw this yesterday. There’s something weird going on with this.
she wrote that a rule in the Democratic National Committee’s official 2016 Call for the Convention now requires her to declare who she will vote for as an “automatic unpledged delegate,” or superdelegate, at the convention.According to a state Democratic Party spokesman, in late April, six of the eight superdelegates were certified as supporting Clinton, and Fuller Clark was certified as supporting Sanders, in accordance with the article in the Call for the Convention.
I thought they were all supposed to be unpledged until the convention, but now they have to declare for someone ahead of time?
I declare this day to be “Martha Fuller Clark” day in perpetuity.
Yeah, regular people actually voting for someone is pretty stupid.
I looked at the [“Call for the Convention”] (http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/12.15.14_2016_Delegate_Selection_Documents_Mailing_-_Rules_Call_Regs_Model_Plan_Checklist_12.15.14.pdf), and I think this is what she is referring to:
If persons eligible for pledged party leader and elected official delegate positions have not made known their presidential preference under the procedures established by the state pursuant to Rule 12 for candidates for district-level and at-large delegate positions, their preferences shall be ascertained through alternative procedures established by the state party, which shall require a signed pledge of support for a presidential candidate. Such an alternative system shall have a final deadline for submitting a pledge of support after the selection of all district-level delegates has been completed and must provide an opportunity for disapproval by the presidential candidate or the candidate’s authorized representative.
So, it looks like the rule is so that candidates can say, “Hell, no. I don’t want that person’s support.”
I don’t get your point. All I was saying was that, if these superdelegates had gone Bernie’s way earlier, it might have had enough of an impact to get Bernie elected, but now I fear that that’s not the case.
Cool. Has he figured out how he’s going to get his proposals through Congress?
I don’t think he’d have any tougher time with that than the much-hated Clinton would.
sanders supporters will decide this election and could throw it to trump.
how about that speech by hillary yesterday? wow, in a normal election that might have been the moment she won the election.
Good enough! I’m convinced.
You mean the one on foreign policy? How would that topic win any presidential candidate the election these days? Very few Americans care all that much about foreign policy, and most care much, MUCH more about how things in general keep steadily declining at home.
[quote=“nimelennar, post:8, topic:79070”]
I don’t get your point. All I was saying was that, if these superdelegates had gone Bernie’s way earlier, it might have had enough of an impact to get Bernie elected, but now I fear that that’s not the case.
[/quote]The bulk of Bernie’s popular vote/pledged delegate deficits are due to him getting crushed with non-white voters. Do you really think they were basing their votes on who the superdelegates endorsed?
Well, who elected the regular people?
#I DIDN’T VOTE FOR THEM!
I think that if it didn’t look like Clinton had an insurmountable lead due to her own superdelegates, Bernie might have gotten more votes, perhaps from voters who stayed home.
Unlike Bernie, I guess you’re not sick and tired of hearing about her emails??
If you choose to characterize it that way, yes.
Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.
–Hillary Clinton, giving a foreign policy speech.
People don’t vote based on this stuff. And if they did, your argument could apply to any number of other things like political endorsements, reporting on fundraising numbers, crowd sizes, or previous state wins.
Right. It seemed to me as much or more about how we can’t trust crazy Trump to run our foreign policy than about what she’d do while running it. At least he seems like more of an isolationist (to the extent that anyone can tell what he thinks about the U.S. in relation to the rest of the world), especially compared to her apparent taste for heedless intervention (and death and destruction).
