Hillary gets more delegates than Sanders, even after brutal loss

[Underverse]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/

Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will.
Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

So, how is this democracy?

The New Hampshire primary wasn't even close. 22 point spread. Yet Clinton emerges with more delegates than Sanders? Not just equal. More.

Am I the only one pissed about this? I haven't really seen much about it in the news/social media; stumbled upon that article by chance. This seems like another point for those already disillusioned by the establishment to rail on, and justifiably so. As it stands, Sanders has 9.6% percent of the delegates to Clinton's 90.4%, while recent polls put a popular vote at 42% for Sanders and 44% for Clinton.

So again, is this democracy?

[Independent voter]

It doesn't sound fair at face value but everyone knew the rules going in, Clinton, Sanders, Trump, etc.

[Scyclone]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/





So, how is this democracy?

The New Hampshire primary wasn't even close. 22 point spread. Yet Clinton emerges with more delegates than Sanders? Not just equal. More.

Am I the only one pissed about this? I haven't really seen much about it in the news/social media; stumbled upon that article by chance. This seems like another point for those already disillusioned by the establishment to rail on, and justifiably so. As it stands, Sanders has 9.6% percent of the delegates to Clinton's 90.4%, while recent polls put a popular vote at 42% for Sanders and 44% for Clinton.

So again, is this democracy?

Welcome to the real world of politics, where everyone has friends and enemies in every corner. Backstabbing isn't just a softly spoken mention, it is an art form for people like this.

Bernie Sanders is a failed politician, his career shows that. Even if he had the best interests of the people in mind (despite his lack of comprehension in our economical system), he still is a victim waiting to be tore apart by someone more politically savvy. Clinton is absolutely ruthless when it comes to bending politics to her whim, that is why she is going to walk away scot free from what would essentially be a felonious crime in other countries for the things she has done in her past.

The only proper candidates are those who know how to play the game. You should only hope that said person also has your interests in mind, when you go to vote. Or actually, don't bother voting, not like they'd count anyway lol.

I have a feeling it will wind up

Hilary vs Cruz or Trump. I do not foresee Cruz being able to manipulate Trump like Hilary can manipulate Bernie, so it still makes that an interesting conflict.

[GennGreymane]

Welcome to American democrazy.

[Deleted]

So, how is this democracy?

The New Hampshire primary wasn't even close. 22 point spread. Yet Clinton emerges with more delegates than Sanders? Not just equal. More.

Am I the only one pissed about this? I haven't really seen much about it in the news/social media; stumbled upon that article by chance. This seems like another point for those already disillusioned by the establishment to rail on, and justifiably so. As it stands, Sanders has 9.6% percent of the delegates to Clinton's 90.4%, while recent polls put a popular vote at 42% for Sanders and 44% for Clinton.

So again, is this democracy?

The democratic party can pick its nomine via round of golf, coin toss, or mario cart if it likes - its not a state function.

[Underverse]

As others have pointed out in other threads, it's a safeguard for the party. Sanders was free to run independent or for another party and adhere to their nomination rules. He opted to run as a democrat, and in doing so must adhere to their nomination process.

That's fine. I'm simply suggesting that the nomination process is rigged bullshit.

[chrisberb]

We've had 2 states vote/caucus so far..lets give it a little bit more time before we worry about our democracy being a sham.

[Adam Jensen]

The democratic party can pick its nomine via round of golf, coin toss, or mario cart if it likes - its not a state function.

Hell, they could just up and say "Hilary Clinton" and not even do elections.

The primaries are not a function of the state, like you said.

[Underverse]

The democratic party can pick its nomine via round of golf, coin toss, or mario cart if it likes - its not a state function.

Okay, that's cool, and also not democratic at all.

[Milchshake]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/





So, how is this democracy?

The New Hampshire primary wasn't even close. 22 point spread. Yet Clinton emerges with more delegates than Sanders? Not just equal. More.

Am I the only one pissed about this? I haven't really seen much about it in the news/social media; stumbled upon that article by chance.

So again, is this democracy?

I have a hard time believing anyone stumbles onto the dailycaller.com by chance.

[Dadwen]

The democratic party can pick its nomine via round of golf, coin toss, or mario cart if it likes - its not a state function.

kind of the way I see it, this is not the vote for the official office, this is just the parties picking who they want to run for that office representing their party.

[Underverse]

That's a little unfair. He's currently running for the democratic nomination, not president. If you disagree with how the Democrats handle their primary in each state, by all means advocate party change. But it's not an apple to apple comparison of democracy. While the GOP's nomination process is similar, it is different. The political parties should have a say in their nomination process, otherwise what's the point of primaries.

Yes, I would disagree with the process. I'm not saying anyone is cheating. I'm simply saying that the system is corrupt, rigged, trash unfit for choosing a national candidate.

Political parties get a say through their voter base. They don't need any other forms of expression beyond that.

[TZucchini]

I'd be pretty surprised if the superdelegates ignored the will of the people. It's never happened before. It would basically destroy the party.

[Underverse]

I have a hard time believing anyone stumbles onto the dailycaller.com by chance.

Well it was linked to me. I don't exactly troll the internet for articles.

[Stormdash]

The Democrat nominating process is not particularly democratic. Clinton's nomination is a fait accompli, super delegates make it so, this is all just a light show. That's really gonna bern the Democrat base come November. Hopefully anyway.

[Scyclone]

I'd be pretty surprised if the superdelegates ignored the will of the people. It's never happened before. It would basically destroy the party.

and



Would it really destroy any party tho? :P

[Nynax]

I'll just say, that if the DNC ignores the popular vote to nominate Clinton in a scenario where Sanders should have been the clear winner... I might just vote Republican in the General, even if it's Trump.

[Oviorasi]

My understanding is that these super delegates can change their vote any time between now and July.

[Skroe]

The democratic party can pick its nomine via round of golf, coin toss, or mario cart if it likes - its not a state function.

Bingo. The Democratic and Republican parties have entirely different nominating processes.

Folks need a regular reminder that political parties have no official capacity and are essentially, private organizations.

With respect to Sanders, this by the way, is actually ENTIRELY fair from one point of view. You see there are many, many people in this country who identify as Democrats who being a 'Democrat' is a meanginful thing. Their parents were Democrats. They grew up and went to school as Democrats. They're involved with the local union that is a Democratic bastion. Something of that nature.

To many of us, especially considering the huge mass of independent voters that may seem nuts that a political designation is meaningful - but it's really not. It's very common in the Western world as a whole where established political parts go from generation to generation. Life-long members of Labour in the UK know this particularly, for example. And in the US, the same principle applies for Republicans too.

To many people, being a "Democrat" (or a "Republican") means something powerful. It's something to be impassioned about.

The Democrat''s superdelegate system acts as a private entity - the party - protecting itself from a Trump figure, who would have a much harder time if the Republican party had such a system. They act as a filter against outsiders.

Why is this fair for Sanders? Consider how many first-time voters he is attracting. Consider the types of voters. Consider that he was an indpendent until very recently (last year).

If you're a life long Democrat, just imagine having a non-Democrat have your party's nomination for President? It's entirely fair that Sanders, an outsider, will have to work even harder to scale this firewall, because institutions should absolutely protect themselves against outsiders whose interests may not be theirs. What is happening in the Republican party is evidence of that. Trump is going to lead them off a cliff. What Sanders supporters have yet to accept, is how Sander's far-left message will resonate in a country that is emphatically and reliably center-right. The superdelegate system is just another way the party can protect it's interests against that kind of episode.

Fair in a pure democratic 1 person 1 vote sense? Absolutely not. But neither is the Democratic Party, not an organ of government, required to live up to those standards.

[Underverse]

Though I totally agree that it is indeed bullshit, I think it sorta makes sense. Even if democrat primary voters are ready for an extremist, there are some, if not many, issues that would result from having Sanders run in the general. That being said, it is total bullshit, but understandable why the superdelegates voted the way they did.

Sanders is slated to do better in the general election than Hillary is; for example, Sanders v Trump favors Sanders by 10 points, Clinton v Trump favors Clinton by 5 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ders-5565.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html