Bernie Supporters to Stage Fart-In at DNC

[Bollocks]

This is moronic. Median wage depends on the minimum wage (and more so as income inequality widens).

To see this, imagine if the bottom half made minimum wage $X, then the median IS $X. So now set the minimum to $X/2. Okay cool, now the median is $X/2, so I guess the OPTIMAL minimum is $X/4... WOOPS!

COULD IT BE? The medium wage separating itself of the minimal wage??????!!!!!!!!!! .

Now all joking aside, you are right I should have pointed that I'm making these statments based on the kaitz index that is indicated in the source provided in the post.

[THE Bigzoman]

Are they adults?

No.

No they're not.

But the OP looks more like satire.

I don't like "crooked Hilary" as a linguistic kill shot.

Something like Shilarly sounds soo much better.

*Runs to the patent office*.

[iceberg265]

OK. Let's have a debate.

Go on, now. Make your case.

Voter purges, voter suppression, votes not being counted, random bullshit happening, exit polls completely different than the official results, etc etc. The DNC has rigged the election at every turn.

[Theinquisition]

Voter purges, voter suppression, votes not being counted, random bullshit happening, exit polls completely different than the official results, etc etc. The DNC has rigged the election at every turn.

should have ran as a independent.

thread closed/

[iceberg265]

should have ran as a independent.

thread closed/

Or the DNC could have actually been fair and impartial. /thread closed

[aethermachine]

I laughed way too hard at this, I was in public damnit people are giving me funny looks...

[TZucchini]

Voter purges, voter suppression, votes not being counted, random bullshit happening, exit polls completely different than the official results, etc etc. The DNC has rigged the election at every turn.

There's absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing in any of these proclaimed instances. Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the administrative issues with voting have favored Hillary Clinton. It's equally as likely that they favored Bernie.

And this just in, the DNC need not rig the election. They're a private entity, and if they really wanted, they could choose a nominee without a vote.

You're just spouting unproven conspiracy theories. I voted for Bernie, by the way.

[RickJamesLich]

Or the DNC could have actually been fair and impartial. /thread closed

Bernie still can run as a third party candidate. If he doesn't do it, he has nobody to blame but himself. I guess we'll see how serious he is about that "revolution".

[iceberg265]

There's absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing in any of these proclaimed instances. Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the administrative issues with voting have favored Hillary Clinton. It's equally as likely that they favored Bernie.

And this just in, the DNC need not rig the election. They're a private entity, and if they really wanted, they could choose a nominee without a vote.

You're just spouting unproven conspiracy theories. I voted for Bernie, by the way.

There is evidence, you just will not find it on establishment media.

[Lorelei]

Technically she does not have enough votes without superdelegates to win it.

Neither does he. The point is that if superdelegates didn't exist, then the person with the most regular delegates would win, which would still be Hillary.

[Theinquisition]

Or the DNC could have actually been fair and impartial. /thread closed

they have no obligation to be loyal to Bernie, it is a private organization. Why he thought he could be a registered I for decades and change to D and expect their support is beyond me.

double thread closed/

[Mormolyce]

Are the Democrats trying to compete with Trump's campaign in ludicrous terms?

[Heladys]

Seems about par for the Berniebros I've had the displeasure of encountering.

[caervek]

If Superdelegates weren't a thing, Hillary would have still won.

We don't know that for certain, all we do know is that it would have definitely been much closer.

[Vash The Stampede]

We don't know that for certain, all we do know is that it would have definitely been much closer.

Considering the tactic used by Hillary was to tell everyone she won, because I have 500 more delegates than Bernie. She's been declared the winner long before it was over, and that definitely had an impact on votes. It's not like many media sources said that her 500 delegate lead was from super delegates and those delegates can change their vote, and in fact haven't even voted yet.

[ComputerNerd]

I am able to empty large rooms solo.
Bean there, done that.

[Orlong]

There is evidence, you just will not find it on establishment media.

And if you point it out, youre labeled as a conspiracy theorist or right wing extremist

- - - Updated - - -

Neither does he. The point is that if superdelegates didn't exist, then the person with the most regular delegates would win, which would still be Hillary.

Not true. Neither of them would win because neither has the required number of delegates to win without superdelegates. You dont win by just having more delegates, you have to have greater than 50% of the total number of delegates to win.

- - - Updated - - -

And this just in, the DNC need not rig the election. They're a private entity, and if they really wanted, they could choose a nominee without a vote.

Thats true, but by doing so they would piss off the democrat voters because they would see that they arent being given a choice. This is actually what they have been doing this year but they mask it good enough that many people who dont follow politics dont see it. Its totally rigged. With there being 720 superdelegates they can overturn almost any candidate that wins the peoples vote.

[iceberg265]

they have no obligation to be loyal to Bernie, it is a private organization. Why he thought he could be a registered I for decades and change to D and expect their support is beyond me.

double thread closed/

Then they shouldn't have publicly stated that they would be fair. They should have said from the start that "no sorry, we are picking Hillary." Instead they claim to be the party of working people when they are really corporatists.

And, to "triple close" this; if they don't want independents' votes in the primaries, they should not expect to get them in November.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither does he. The point is that if superdelegates didn't exist, then the person with the most regular delegates would win, which would still be Hillary.

Are you sure? Exit polling and the number of scandals point to a different result.

[Lorelei]

Are you sure? Exit polling and the number of scandals point to a different result.

Yes, I'm sure. Exit polling doesn't trump (no pun intended) actual votes or electoral math. Neither does the "number of scandals," whatever that means. Clinton won more pledged delegates. She secured the popular vote by millions. Apparently those scandals didn't affect things enough to change either of those outcomes.

If there were no superdelegates, then then the "magic number" to secure the nomination would be smaller -- the nominee would need 2,027 pledged delegates (non-supers, of course, because they wouldn't exist) to win. Clinton has 2,220.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. Neither of them would win because neither has the required number of delegates to win without superdelegates. You dont win by just having more delegates, you have to have greater than 50% of the total number of delegates to win.

My sentence began with "if superdelegates didn't exist ..." for a reason. People keep arguing that eliminating superdelegates would somehow change the results. That doesn't make any sense. If they didn't exist, then Clinton wouldn't need them to win, and she would win on the pledged delegates. They wouldn't hold up the convention because of a failure to secure votes that don't exist.

It is difficult for any candidate to win without winning some superdelegates. You'd have to win by a landslide (59 to 41 percent) to be able to ignore them. That's different from saying that someone won because of superdelegates. That would only happen if someone lost the pledged delegate count, but won enough superdelegates to push them over the edge. That has never happened, and it hasn't happened here. If the superdelegates vote for the candidate who won the pledged delegate count, then they haven't changed the outcome of the election.

[Wulfey]

Yes, I'm sure. Exit polling doesn't trump (no pun intended) actual votes or electoral math. Neither does the "number of scandals," whatever that means. Clinton won more pledged delegates. She secured the popular vote by millions. Apparently those scandals didn't affect things enough to change either of those outcomes.

If there were no superdelegates, then then the "magic number" to secure the nomination would be smaller -- the nominee would need 2,027 pledged delegates (non-supers, of course, because they wouldn't exist) to win. Clinton has 2,220.

- - - Updated - - -



My sentence began with "if superdelegates didn't exist ..." for a reason. People keep arguing that eliminating superdelegates would somehow change the results. That doesn't make any sense. If they didn't exist, then Clinton wouldn't need them to win, and she would win on the pledged delegates. They wouldn't hold up the convention because of a failure to secure votes that don't exist.

It is difficult for any candidate to win without winning some superdelegates. You'd have to win by a landslide (59 to 41 percent) to be able to ignore them. That's different from saying that someone won because of superdelegates. That would only happen if someone lost the pledged delegate count, but won enough superdelegates to push them over the edge. That has never happened, and it hasn't happened here. If the superdelegates vote for the candidate who won the pledged delegate count, then they haven't changed the outcome of the election.

I love the Berniemath switcheroo. They switch up the numerators/denominators in order to confuse an obvious result. They use the numerator from strictly the pledged delegates but use the denominator from the total delegates (including Supers). These Bernie trolls will engage in flagrant intellectual dishonesty, and then switch to complaining about how the System is Rigged the moment they are caught.

2,383 Total delegates out of 4766 (including Supers) needed for Nomination

HRC has 2,220 Pledged and Bernie has 1,831 Pledged
HRC has 591 Supers and Bernie has 48 Supers (soon to be zero)

So if you use the denominator from the Super-including-reality-count but discount committed Supers using Berniemath for the numerator, then HRC only has 2,220 of 2,383.