Hillary gets more delegates than Sanders, even after brutal loss

[Alakallanar]

I'll say it again: Donald Trump.

The Republican Party... you know they believe some pretty crazy politics, but they are not stupid people. They spent the last four years, working since pretty much the day Romney lost, to reform the nominating process. They worked very hard at it to make sure 2016 produced all-star nominees in a tightly controlled process that would not become a 2012-level side show where the primary weakened the nominee. They thought they had it figured out.

And then Donald Trump blew it to smitheereens.

The outlines of it SHOULD WORK, and probably would work to control Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee-style candidates, but there are no mechanisms to inhibit against populist anti-establishment figures. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see the Republican Party take up a superdelegate system after this election.

The republicans also have "superdelegates". If I recall correctly there are 210 uncommitted delegates.

That's actually one of the two most likely outcomes for the GOP (in my opinion). If there are only 3 candidates left before Super Tuesday (i.e. Trump, Cruz and one moderate Candidate) the last moderate candidat will get all the moderate votes and likely win. If, however, the field remains too large for too long, then Trump will likely get a plurality of the delegates. But it is very unlikely that he will get a majority and certainly not enough to cancel out all the uncommitted delegates.

So this election cycle it is actually possible that the superdelegates/uncommitted delegates decide the candidates for both the GOP and the Democrats. (Although the chances for this to happen are much higher for the GOP.)

EDIT: Correction. I was misinformed. There aren't uncommitted delegates. Serves me right for actually believing Karl Rove sometimes knows what he is talking about. Nevertheless I doubt that Trump will get a majority.

[PACOX]

I believe superdelegates are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Furthermore, in the infinitesimally rare event in which superdelegates need to flex their power, I'm not thoroughly convinced that them doing so will help more than it will hurt.

And yes. Sanders is an independent on paper. But he's voted in lockstep with the Democrats since the beginning of time. He's hardly an outsider.

Agreeing with the Democrats still make him an outsider and if I was a Democrat I would want him being my parties nominee after only being there for one year. He would have to be an exceptional candidate

[Daerio]

There is absolutely nothing unique about this behavior to THIS country. It's a global phenomenon.

Way to dance around the point, headlong into another irrelevant rant.

[Stormdash]

Agreeing with the Democrats still make him an outsider and if I was a Democrat I would want him being my parties nominee after only being there for one year. He would have to be an exceptional candidate

I don't think it's very specific to him; from the outside it looks like it's a hopey-changey love-in like Obama was. Difference being that Clinton has a stranglehold on the process in 2016 and didn't in 2008, so all those feels aren't going to matter to the outcome.

[urasim]

Way to dance around the point, headlong into another irrelevant rant.

Dance around the point? He adequately explained his points and why you're wrong. Just because you don't see it his way doesn't mean he's wrong or that you're right. You seem to dance around him... It's like you deliberately ignore his points while you wait for him to say something you agree with. Why aren't you intellectually honest enough to engage in an actual discussion?

To many people the political party they're involved with is like their family or their favorite baseball team. Many will never, EVER vote for the other side. Even if the other side 100% agrees with them and their side 100% disagrees with them.

And of course there are those that will never vote for specific people within their party. So much so that they'd vote for the worst person on the opposing party.

I consider politics to be a circus. It's a massive joke. They're all telling half truths to appease the most people they can. They hardly ever follow through with their goals, and when they try something it almost always fails or is botched. Actually, politics is like watching the absolute worst reality TV shows known to man... That said, I vote for people that represent my interests. Sanders is the only that comes close to those interests, sadly.

[Daerio]

Dance around the point? He adequately explained his points and why you're wrong. Just because you don't see it his way doesn't mean he's wrong or that you're right. You seem to dance around him... It's like you deliberately ignore his points while you wait for him to say something you agree with. Why aren't you intellectually honest enough to engage in an actual discussion?

Derp.

His statement was basically "every other country has the same problem we do, so it's not really a problem."

Doesn't really address the point I made at all.

[BrerBear]

If Bernie can't even convince the super delegates to switch to his side, how well could he possibly do at trying to negotiate with the hostile Republicans who will be actively thwarting all of his campaign promises?

[urasim]

Derp.

His statement was basically "every other country has the same problem we do, so it's not really a problem."

Doesn't really address the point I made at all.

It's not a fucking problem. People can vote however they want to vote.

[BuckSparkles]

This notion that political parties are like sports teams that you should remain loyal to no matter what is actually what's wrong with politics in this country. Your loyalty has no basis in reality, only some fanciful idealism that you've remained loyal to a group of people who haven't remained loyal to the ideals they're supposed to represent.

You just keep rooting for that home team, its been working so well for you.

What would be your solution then? Complain? Not vote?

[Daerio]

What would be your solution then? Complain? Not vote?

Confront every idiot that spews the idiotic notion that loyalty to a political party somehow trumps everything else?

"People can vote however they want to vote." Absolutely, you idiots.

[urasim]

Confront every idiot that spews the idiotic notion that loyalty to a political party somehow trumps everything else?

"People can vote however they want to vote." Absolutely, you idiots.

Haha! We should force people to do what you want them to do! Not much freedom in your fucked up little world is there?

[BuckSparkles]

It's not a fucking problem. People can vote however they want to vote.

EXACTLY.

This isn't a test where if you mark A 6 times in a row you will fail the test.

You vote on who matches up to your beliefs better. If one party happens to match you better every election? Guess what? YOU VOTE FOR THEM.

Being educated on what a candidate stands for can still end up with you voting for the same party every time.

I don't care what democrat is put up there, or what their qualifications are. The liberals do not match up with my belief system, so I will never vote for them.

And consider this: If you believe in a certain set of beliefs, wouldn't a "Qualified" candidate on the other side be a BAD thing? Because if they are -good- at their job, they will advance -their- beliefs, furthering the state of the country from what you want.

[Daerio]

Haha! We should force people to do what you want them to do! Not much freedom in your fucked up little world is there?

I don't see how I'm forcing anyone to be informed, only mocking them for being ignorant - which is my right, unless you want to argue about that?

[BuckSparkles]

Haha! We should force people to do what you want them to do! Not much freedom in your fucked up little world is there?

"Everybody who believes differently than me should vote for my party."

That is all I see when people say what that guy said.

[urasim]

I don't see how I'm forcing anyone to be informed, only mocking them for being ignorant - which is my right, unless you want to argue about that?

So your solution is to do nothing but be a whiny little brat? Sounds brilliant. You keep doing that.

[BuckSparkles]

I don't see how I'm forcing anyone to be informed, only mocking them for being ignorant - which is my right, unless you want to argue about that?

So somebody studies everything about every candidate, and still end up voting for the guy they originally thought.

What then?

[Daerio]

So your solution is to do nothing but be a whiny little brat? Sounds brilliant. You keep doing that.

And you and yours keep defending your obvious ignorance, and talk more about how you should be loyal to a party that isn't loyal to you.

[Deleted]

So again, is this democracy?

its not.

Its hilarious how many americans think they live in a democracy.....

And its almost as funny how many of my fellow Brits are also under that illusion.

[BuckSparkles]

its not.

Its hilarious how many americans think they live in a democracy.....

And its almost as funny how many of my fellow Brits are also under that illusion.

But the memes....

[urasim]

And you and yours keep defending your obvious ignorance, and talk more about how you should be loyal to a party that isn't loyal to you.

I'm not defending ignorance. I'm defending the right to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason.

If someone is dead set on voting for someone, I'm not about to tell him he's a fucking idiot. That person could be informed or uninformed. It doesn't fucking matter. You really don't like the idea that people are free to choose, do you?