Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Delegate count and super-delegates.

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 11:58:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
First, as I have posted before, I have no real issue with the super-delegates or the process, but some conversations are pissing me off just like in 2008. Lets look.

Clinton has
673 - Pledge delegates
461 - Super delegates
1,134 - Total

Sanders has
477 - Pledge delegates
22 - Super delegates
499 - Total delegates

174 delegates separate the candidates. That is not unsubstantial, about 35% diff - Or of the needed 2,383 delegates, 717 are super-delegates making Clinton at about 40% of the needed pledge and 65% of super delegates to Sanders 30% of pledge and 3% of super delegates.

Now, I still have yet to find a good site for historical delegate counts at time, but in 2008, I can tell you from memory that Clinton was not doing much better than Sanders, and she fought it out well past where there was ANY chance should could make it.

Yea, we are getting close to the end for Sanders, but everyone needs to cut it out with "just drop out already" - its bullsh1t.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:10:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/8/2016 11:58:50 PM, TBR wrote:

but in 2008, I can tell you from memory that Clinton was not doing much better than Sanders

(Sanders didnt run in 2008 <3)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:29:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/8/2016 11:58:50 PM, TBR wrote:
First, as I have posted before, I have no real issue with the super-delegates or the process, but some conversations are pissing me off just like in 2008. Lets look.

Clinton has
673 - Pledge delegates
461 - Super delegates
1,134 - Total

Sanders has
477 - Pledge delegates
22 - Super delegates
499 - Total delegates

174 delegates separate the candidates. That is not unsubstantial, about 35% diff - Or of the needed 2,383 delegates, 717 are super-delegates making Clinton at about 40% of the needed pledge and 65% of super delegates to Sanders 30% of pledge and 3% of super delegates.

Now, I still have yet to find a good site for historical delegate counts at time, but in 2008, I can tell you from memory that Clinton was not doing much better than Sanders, and she fought it out well past where there was ANY chance should could make it.

Yea, we are getting close to the end for Sanders, but everyone needs to cut it out with "just drop out already" - its bullsh1t

Sanders wants to have a say in the 2016 party platform and possibly be in a position to negotiate the vp choice (ie a progressive but probably not himself)

Anyone saying he should drop out either doesn't understand politics or thinks that sanders is making a mistake prioritizing shaping the politics of the left over focusing on winning the election. His actual likelihood of winning is a red herrin regarding whether he should drop out
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 12:10:20 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/8/2016 11:58:50 PM, TBR wrote:

but in 2008, I can tell you from memory that Clinton was not doing much better than Sanders

(Sanders didnt run in 2008 <3)

Better than Sanders is doing now.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 12:35:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 12:29:49 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/8/2016 11:58:50 PM, TBR wrote:
First, as I have posted before, I have no real issue with the super-delegates or the process, but some conversations are pissing me off just like in 2008. Lets look.

Clinton has
673 - Pledge delegates
461 - Super delegates
1,134 - Total

Sanders has
477 - Pledge delegates
22 - Super delegates
499 - Total delegates

174 delegates separate the candidates. That is not unsubstantial, about 35% diff - Or of the needed 2,383 delegates, 717 are super-delegates making Clinton at about 40% of the needed pledge and 65% of super delegates to Sanders 30% of pledge and 3% of super delegates.

Now, I still have yet to find a good site for historical delegate counts at time, but in 2008, I can tell you from memory that Clinton was not doing much better than Sanders, and she fought it out well past where there was ANY chance should could make it.

Yea, we are getting close to the end for Sanders, but everyone needs to cut it out with "just drop out already" - its bullsh1t

Sanders wants to have a say in the 2016 party platform and possibly be in a position to negotiate the vp choice (ie a progressive but probably not himself)

Anyone saying he should drop out either doesn't understand politics or thinks that sanders is making a mistake prioritizing shaping the politics of the left over focusing on winning the election. His actual likelihood of winning is a red herrin regarding whether he should drop out

I agree
risetoliberty
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 9:58:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
We are long past the point where we even need delegates. We have the ability to elect by popular vote.
When those elected claim to speak for the people but in reality are elected by delegates not the people, they in fact speak for the delegates NOT the people.

Political parties have taken total control of delegates ate they were created for to start with and the parties have eliminated who can vote to such a degree that only those supporting the two mainstream parties actually get to vote when it counts.

All candidates should be on the same ballot and everyone should be able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of which party a person is running on.
And many states you have to be a democrat or republican to even vote in the primaries. How constitutional is that ?

This government belongs to the people not the political parties.

That said, this is a primary election, and Sanders may lose, but until there is a point of no return, he should stay.

I am old enough to remember all of the scandals the Clinton's have been involved in and the lack of any punishment for wrong doings. I personally am sick and tired of the Clinton's and Trumps running things. That is simply elitist government which is what the Whigs stood for.

Are American voters not responsible enough and intelligent enough to elect our own representatives without delegates deciding if they are going to vote for the people or against the people?

Lets eliminate the control that political parties have over our elections and give that power back to the people where it was intended to rest to start with.
Rise To Liberty or fall for anything !
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 10:14:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 9:58:18 PM, risetoliberty wrote:
We are long past the point where we even need delegates. We have the ability to elect by popular vote.
When those elected claim to speak for the people but in reality are elected by delegates not the people, they in fact speak for the delegates NOT the people.

Political parties have taken total control of delegates ate they were created for to start with and the parties have eliminated who can vote to such a degree that only those supporting the two mainstream parties actually get to vote when it counts.

All candidates should be on the same ballot and everyone should be able to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of which party a person is running on.
And many states you have to be a democrat or republican to even vote in the primaries. How constitutional is that ?

This government belongs to the people not the political parties.

That said, this is a primary election, and Sanders may lose, but until there is a point of no return, he should stay.

I am old enough to remember all of the scandals the Clinton's have been involved in and the lack of any punishment for wrong doings. I personally am sick and tired of the Clinton's and Trumps running things. That is simply elitist government which is what the Whigs stood for.

Are American voters not responsible enough and intelligent enough to elect our own representatives without delegates deciding if they are going to vote for the people or against the people?

Lets eliminate the control that political parties have over our elections and give that power back to the people where it was intended to rest to start with.

There are plenty of good reasons to have party's, and in the end it is up to each party to make the rules that govern the internals of that party - like how delegates work.

Further, the representational democracy is very useful. The electoral college has many benefits - if they are outweighed is debatable, but not that it is just some old fashion relic.
risetoliberty
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 10:17:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In reading the 12th amendment of US Constitution and article II I do not find any mention of delegates AND Super Delegates. I only see electors mentioned.

I don't see any mention of party delegates which have NO mention in the US Constitution.

The electors only come into play during the general election. At least constitutionally.
Constitutionally, there is no primary election.

Our government has been hijacked by political parties who at best should have very limited input into elections. The government belongs to the people, not to politicians nor to political parties. And while they claim to know what is best for us, they have done far more harm to our democracy than they have ever done good.

We need to take back America !
Rise To Liberty or fall for anything !
risetoliberty
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 6:49:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
There are plenty of good reasons to have party's, and in the end it is up to each party to make the rules that govern the internals of that party - like how delegates work.

Further, the representational democracy is very useful. The electoral college has many benefits - if they are outweighed is debatable, but not that it is just some old fashion relic.

Please inform me since I obviously missed something some how.

What are the good reasons for political parties?
And why do those reasons require political parties.
What functions do political party's add that would or could not be present in non partisan government?

Debates can be held without political party's.

It is common to hear people say,"there are lots of good reasons for political parties".
I for one would like to know what those reasons are and why our government works better with them than it did without them.

The U.S. constitution is the result of the greatest debate on governmental issues in our history. That was done without party's and resulted in a document that if followed secures the rights of all Americans.
Rise To Liberty or fall for anything !
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 6:49:48 PM, risetoliberty wrote:
There are plenty of good reasons to have party's, and in the end it is up to each party to make the rules that govern the internals of that party - like how delegates work.

Further, the representational democracy is very useful. The electoral college has many benefits - if they are outweighed is debatable, but not that it is just some old fashion relic.

Please inform me since I obviously missed something some how.

What are the good reasons for political parties?

People naturally like to ally themselves with people who share similar views in order to gather enough numbers to push legislation

And why do those reasons require political parties.

The more organized that people with similar views are, the more capable they will be to either push legislation they want and the more capable they will be to block legislation they do not want

What functions do political party's add that would or could not be present in non partisan government?

See above

Debates can be held without political party's.

*In theory

It is common to hear people say,"there are lots of good reasons for political parties".
I for one would like to know what those reasons are and why our government works better with them than it did without them.

Do you always ask the question three times in a post?

The U.S. constitution is the result of the greatest debate on governmental issues in our history. That was done without party's

Actually the Constitution was made after the failure of the Articles of Confederation which made the founding fathers realize that a strong national government was needed for the nation to survive. However, two camps though formed over just how powerful this new government should be: The Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted the Constitution, Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights, both came to an agreement to include both in the formation of the new government.... Washington and Adams were classified as Federalists, Jefferson and his successors were Anti-federalists, and thus two parties were formed, even though they dont exactly match the parties we have today
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 7:05:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 6:49:48 PM, risetoliberty wrote:
There are plenty of good reasons to have party's, and in the end it is up to each party to make the rules that govern the internals of that party - like how delegates work.

Further, the representational democracy is very useful. The electoral college has many benefits - if they are outweighed is debatable, but not that it is just some old fashion relic.

Please inform me since I obviously missed something some how.

What are the good reasons for political parties?

Party's, and party platform, form a consensus. A understandable "group" of concepts for the voters to agree or disagree with on larger scale. A general unifying political philosophy.

Internally, it minimizes extremes. To gain support across a broad set of voter interests,
wild extremes are moderated. A radical agenda of some individual in the party is fine, but tempered with the party platform as a whole.

There are more pros, and a good number of cons, but generally party's serve a very useful purpose.

And why do those reasons require political parties.

I think that is covered above. None of that is accomplished without a party system.

What functions do political party's add that would or could not be present in non partisan government?

Debates can be held without political party's.

It is common to hear people say,"there are lots of good reasons for political parties".
I for one would like to know what those reasons are and why our government works better with them than it did without them.

The U.S. constitution is the result of the greatest debate on governmental issues in our history. That was done without party's and resulted in a document that if followed secures the rights of all Americans.

Well... There were parties. Know of the Federalists anti-federalists? The concept of party was well entrenched in other country's even earlier.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 7:14:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Debates can be held without political party's.

*In theory


I didn't answer this one, so I will tack it on here.

1) The current round of debates are debates within the parties. No, they would not happen without the party's, because it would make no sense. You would just have a bunch of guys running around the country at this point.

2) The actual presidential debates are run by the Commission on Presidential debates and the the Federal Election Commission. These debates happen outside of the party's themselves - they are independent.