The Game is Rigged: Hillary Leave New Hampshire with Equal Number of Delegates as Sanders

[NightHawkeye]

Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders | The Hill

Clinton won nine delegates in the primary but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.​

Too bad Hillary didn't have the same folks as in Iowa who counted ballots ... to at least make the pretense of the process being fair.

 

[JustOneWay]

And I this time I thought it was the conservatives were for states rights to do as they please in their own states? All of a sudden the game is rigged....

LOL

 

[TerranceL]

And I this time I thought it was the conservatives were for states rights to do as they please in their own states? All of a sudden the game is rigged....

LOL

What does "states rights" have to do with anything?

The DNC is a just like the RNC is non-profit tax exempt corporation. Neither the RNC or the DNC are government entities they are free to pick and choose their candidates how they like.

"States rights" tends to only point to things that are, you know, run by the state.

This would be more akin to you placing an order to ABC corp for Product A and getting Product B instead.

 

[Willtor]

The superdelegates were established precisely to ensure that the party insiders could effectively veto someone they didn't want, or decisively swing the decision when the popular vote was close. It was a system designed to stop (someone like) Bernie Sanders. Sounds pretty nefarious to me.

On the other hand, a party can select any qualified candidate it wants by any means it chooses. This really isn't the sort of thing one wants federally mandated. So it's hard to call shenanigans unless they don't actually abide by their own rules. Admittedly, it _is_ strange to have a party called the "Democratic Party" vest so much power over the vote in just a few individuals...

An observation, though: if Sanders won decisively in the public vote, it's unlikely the superdelegates would choose to swing it the other way. 1. They know it would hurt their nominee in the general election when these individuals don't wield extra power, and they might find it difficult to get turnout. 2. It would hurt the party in the long run if their voters believed their voices didn't actually carry weight.

If it's close between Sanders and Clinton, the first point doesn't hold, but the second one does (to a lesser extent).

I'm not optimistic about this being anything more than an academic issue, this election. Sanders is my guy and I'm going to vote for him and encourage my friends to do the same. But he doesn't message to minorities -- Clinton does! He doesn't message to boomers -- Clinton does! He messages to millennials, but I suspect he doesn't realize he's doing it -- Clinton doesn't! But millennials are unlikely to carry him the whole way, no matter how much we manage to get the vote out.

So, I hope I'm wrong, but I think the issue of superdelegates won't be a factor in this election.

 

[DLR]

I saw a delegate scoreboard today that lists all the superdelegates assigned now. So Bernie is trailing by 379 after two contests. I agree with Willtor's assessment. The DNC may have the power to swing it to Hillary but that wouldn't be a good idea. She already has a trust issue among millennials. She is getting crushed by 70 pts for the under 30 vote. I think Bernie's Army would punish the DNC in November if he is wronged. If Hillary is going to win she better do it clean. But it's clear she wins a tie. You'll have a good idea how this is going to trend within a few weeks.

 

[Willtor]

I saw a delegate scoreboard today that lists all the superdelegates assigned now. So Bernie is trailing by 379 after two contests. I agree with Willtor's assessment. The DNC may have the power to swing it to Hillary but that wouldn't be a good idea. She already has a trust issue among millennials. She is getting crushed by 70 pts for the under 30 vote. I think Bernie's Army would punish the DNC in November if he is wronged. If Hillary is going to win she better do it clean. But it's clear she wins a tie. You'll have a good idea how this is going to trend within a few weeks.

Yeah. Super Tuesday, as you suggest. If it's still tight after Super Tuesday, then I'll be a very excited person.

In principle, Sanders doesn't have to win South Carolina or Nevada to get a boost for Super Tuesday. If he significantly outperforms expectations among the voters from demographics where he's considered weak, that would be tremendous. But before Iowa, I read a pretty persuasive Nate Silver piece that he was going to have a very steep hill to climb, even if he'd decisively won both Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[DLR]

... I read a pretty persuasive Nate Silver piece that he was going to have a very steep hill to climb, even if he'd decisively won both Iowa and New Hampshire.

That is what has been said all along. He will probably struggle in large diverse states. He is winning some demographics big that he was not expected to dominate so thoroughly. He has momentum and she appears to be damaged goods at the moment so you just never know. He is going to have to tap into some of the minority vote though, and he has to do it very soon. I'm a Cruz supporter BTW but your revolution is a lot of fun to follow lol. I'm just glad somebody came along to engage young voters again. Apathy towards the whole process is bad for the country, and everyone has gotten sick of the way it's been working for a long time now.

 

[TerranceL]

As odd as it may sound I'm actually really happy with the way the primaries are going for both the Democrats and the Republicans, even though I'd never vote for either candidate.

If there is one thing that people are making very clear this year is that they don't trust the parties anymore, that's why they are voting for outsiders.

Now if people could make the leap the looking outside of the two parties I'd be a very happy camper.

 

[DLR]

.... Now if people could make the leap the looking outside of the two parties I'd be a very happy camper.

I don't see how that happens without huge changes to campaign finance laws and lobbyists. They talk a good game every election cycle, but I don't see it happening in a meaningful way anytime soon. Bush just spent over $1,000 for each individual vote he received in the NH primary. Or his PACs did anyway. That's just an insane amount of money for a primary vote. Trump $31 and Cruz $11.

Sorry for the thread hijack. But in a way that is an attempt to buy an election. Currently legal of course.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I don't see how that happens without huge changes to campaign finance laws and lobbyists. They talk a good game every election cycle, but I don't see it happening in a meaningful way anytime soon. Bush just spent over $1,000 for each individual vote he received in the NH primary. Or his PACs did anyway. That's just an insane amount of money for a primary vote. Trump $31 and Cruz $11.

Better than the $2800+ he spent in Iowa for every vote.

Sorry for the thread hijack. But in a way that is an attempt to buy an election. Currently legal of course.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

 

[The Cadet]

Now if people could make the leap the looking outside of the two parties I'd be a very happy camper.

Spoiler effect. Remember Nader in 2000? If, say, Ron Paul joined the race out of nowhere running as a third party, not only would he probably lose badly, but every vote he gets would be a vote that the Republican party loses. He would split the vote with the Republican nominee, leading to a disaster. Him running would essentially deliver the election directly into the hands of the democrats, hurting his cause. More than two political parties just straight-up doesn't work in a winner-takes-all electoral system. The USA system sucks. :/

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you, at the slightest suggestion that the system we use to freely and fairly elect our leaders might possibly be rigged. Shocked!

 

[Blondepudding]

I don't see how that happens without huge changes to campaign finance laws and lobbyists. They talk a good game every election cycle, but I don't see it happening in a meaningful way anytime soon. Bush just spent over $1,000 for each individual vote he received in the NH primary. Or his PACs did anyway. That's just an insane amount of money for a primary vote. Trump $31 and Cruz $11.

Sorry for the thread hijack. But in a way that is an attempt to buy an election. Currently legal of course.

Campaign finance laws?
SCOTUS decreed that corporations qualify as human beings. Which means "those people" can contribute unlimited funds to candidate of choice.

Bet Hillary takes the office come November.
With as much dirt as is over top her she'd qualify to be 6ft. under by now. But it will all we Hoovered away and she'll zing through the rest of the campaign and straight to the oval office in January 2017. If that does happen that'll prove the elections are rigged.
Or, Trump will take it because America itself is a corporation and he knows how to run big business.
Either one is my bet. But not my vote.

 

[NightHawkeye]

From the Huffington Post today ...
Hillary's Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged | Huffington Post

In other words, one vote from these one-percenters for the Wall Street candidate is worth 10,105 votes from the 99-percenters for the Democratic Socialist candidate. Unfortunately, one-man-one-vote only applies to actual federal elections, not party primary processes.

The more the Millennials (and my people, Gen-X) learn about this, the more convinced they will be that the system is rigged and the current crop of establishment Democrats want to keep it that way.​

 

[TerranceL]

Spoiler effect. Remember Nader in 2000? If, say, Ron Paul joined the race out of nowhere running as a third party, not only would he probably lose badly, but every vote he gets would be a vote that the Republican party loses. He would split the vote with the Republican nominee, leading to a disaster. Him running would essentially deliver the election directly into the hands of the democrats, hurting his cause. More than two political parties just straight-up doesn't work in a winner-takes-all electoral system. The USA system sucks. :/

I don't like the term "spoiler". I understand it, but it bugs me because (to me anyway) it seems to imply that somehow those votes were owed to one of the other parties and that's just not true.

It's commonly said that Perot was the spoiler in the 92 election and cost Bush his re-election. The problem is Perot cost Bush nothing, because he hadn't earned those votes from the people.

Incidentally the Angriest Gnome was right with all his charts and numbers, NAFTA was a horrible idea.

 

[mollieleonard]

In 2008 neither Obama or Clinton had enough delegates from the primaries or caucuses. Although Clinton won the total popular vote, Obama carried the most states (many of them blue states). Many super-delegates changed their endorsements or waited to endorse. Obama got the nomination due to the super-delegate vote. Because the system, the Electoral College, works the way it does and on the Democratic Party side most (maybe even all) states are proportional in disturbing delegates, the campaign is not rigged, but calculated and strategic.

Why a primary in a state like New Hampshire which has less population than the county I live in and the total number of votes (both parties) was little more than half a million should have such importance it really beyond me. That situation is more rigged in my opinion. And why Democratic caucuses in Iowa where voting is not secret, 4000+ will be whittled down to 44 (about 2% total of the national) with a series of three conventions, and delegates are not required to remain with their candidate get such attention is a serious question. On the Republican side a field of 17 was reduced to 5 because of these states ranked 41 and 30 in population size.

 

[DLR]

You can tell a bunch of attorneys wrote the rules to give them flexibility. You can call it strategic but it really does smell like they want to be able to rig an election if they decide to. They've been lucky so far and somebody usually gets momentum, runs the other candidate out of money, and wins the last 20 or more states. As stated 2008 was a problem. There will be more 2008s. On the Republican side I am concerned it ill remain at four or five candidates too long. If they hang around long enough Trump can't get half the delegates, and the drama will be big. Not that I back Trump, but it is going to be ugly if he only gets 35-40% and nobody else is close to him.

 

[Willtor]

<Staff edit>

This is not quite right. The U.S. and Britain were very close allies (as they are, today), so it was neither perfectly altruistic nor perfectly self-serving.

The U.S. was never in danger of being overrun. It's really hard to conquer across an ocean. Even the English Channel crossing was something of a logistical miracle.

And the Nazis doomed their own nuclear program when they decided to ignore all modern scientific contributions made by non-Aryans. Heisenberg was brilliant but he wasn't going to do the whole thing, himself.

Realize that the Manhattan Project was bigger than the American auto industry at the time... and we didn't throw out scientific discoveries just because they had been made by Jews or other "non-Aryans." It was so big that whenever a decision had to be made, as a direction for research, the project would fork and they would go in both directions; light water or heavy water; uranium or plutonium; which enrichment process; etc., etc., etc. Germany wouldn't have had the resources to do this even if they hadn't been fighting a total war.

Additionally, the British and the Norwegian resistance were working together to sabotage production of heavy water (deuterium oxide) ordered by the German nuclear program.

The sum of this is that the Nazis were nowhere close to nuclear weapons, and would not have acquired them during the war, even if they had eventually won.

 

[Blondepudding]

Hillary Reaches Base With AOL Login Page Ad
2/10/16

Isn't the majority of AOL's subscriber base dial-up still?

 

[smaneck]

Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders | The Hill

Clinton won nine delegates in the primary but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.​

​

Trump will have the same problem when it comes to getting the nomination. The Republican party has 437 unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates do in the Democratic Party. Someone with a plurality of votes, but not a majority can be shut out of getting the nomination by these delegates.