esmith
Veteran Member
Are you disagree with the content of the article? We do know that the DNC does not want Sanders as their candidate. And yes there are "superdelegates. " in both parties.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hillary wins New Hampshire by 2 delegate votes
- Thread starter ShivaFan
- Start date
It could be worse.
She could pick Bush as a VP......for bi-partisan appeal, you know.
Yeah, o.k. I'm conservative but I see your point. :>) Bush never was the sharpest
pencil in the box.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Actually both parties do. It just depends on the state.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's much of a factor for the Republicans, seems like they have to go with the popular vote.
"For Republicans, there are generally 3 unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate)
Maybe the Republicans and "Democrats" should swap names?
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
With you posting to Carlson's outlit the way I view it is you're giving him credibility with this that he isn't really worthy of with his site imo (honestly hell even Fox would have more credibility even though I don't like their opinion stuff). Even if other people are posting the same info. It's like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones having the same info and sharing it on their sites and people using their links for the info. There are just more reliable people with the info who deserve to have it spread their info around. That's how I view it anyways. Never forget Jon Stewart and him on "Crossfire." Zingers.
So I see you have the same info just not from Carlson so I'll respond.
The DNC has had this since the late 60's when Kennedy ran against Carter. I'm not a Democrat or anything but I find it to be anti-democratic. I understand why they had it back then but I don't think it's needed now. But, again, I'm not a democrat so...The DNC is a private organization and can have it's own rules. The super delegate rule is long standing. I don't see it going anywhere unless people who are Dems and are participating in primaries speak up against it when things like NH happens.
Last edited:
Actually, I suggested it only because I like the idea of a doomed Democratic ticket.
I don't even know how we (Libertarians) select candidates.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You make a wish, write it down, bend over and shove it up your....
Err wait, I may be thinking of something else.
I hope you are......otherwise, the party would have a hard time growing.
Still, it sounds slightly better than the super delegate system.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
It means they haven't in the past. However we haven't had such an anti-establishment candidate before have we?
But electoral college has subverted the popular vote for president several times in our history. It has happened 4 times total. Most recent was just 16 years ago in the year 2000 when George W. Bush won against Al Gore but lost the popular vote. In fact Al Gore won more than half a million more voters than Bush but still lost.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Yes that is weird. It happens quite a bit in Britain as well with the way "swing constituencies" work much in the same way American swing states do, so a party could win those crucial swing states and win the election while actually losing the popular vote.