The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[ActualCornHusker]

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

 

Read the article.  The superdelegates would have went to Sanders if he had more votes.

 

It doesn't say anything about the timing of those superdelegate pledges. From my recollection, many of the superdelegates had pledged their support early in the process - and while they didn't commit to anyone until the race was about over, they had an enormous influence on many Dem voters who saw the support Hillary had from the superdelegates and therefore cast their vote for her. She had the DNC wrapped around her finger.

[funhusker]

7 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

It doesn't say anything about the timing of those superdelegate pledges. From my recollection, many of the superdelegates had pledged their support early in the process - and while they didn't commit to anyone until the race was about over, they had an enormous influence on many Dem voters who saw the support Hillary had from the superdelegates and therefore cast their vote for her. She had the DNC wrapped around her finger.

Here's the math on the superdelegates

The confusion arises here because neither candidate is going to have enough of the pledged delegates to get the nomination without superdelegates to put them over the top.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate needs a simple majority of 2,383 delegates (pledged or superdelegates) at the convention floor.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates are chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent are superdelegates. So it takes a pretty huge pledged delegate margin of victory — a win of 59 to 41 percent — to take the nomination outright. Otherwise, the superdelegates have to push someone over the finish line.

 

 President Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in 2008 with votes from superdelegates. But they're not the reason he became the nominee.

This is what happened in 2008. Barack Obama did not take enough of the pledged delegates to win the nomination alone. But because Obama had narrowly beaten Clinton among the pledged delegates, the superdelegates followed the will of the voters — and gave him the nomination.

You could look at that and say that Obama won "because of" the superdelegates. And in the most literal sense possible, it'd be true. But, again, superdelegates did not make Obama the nominee — the voters did.

[ActualCornHusker]

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Here's the math on the superdelegates

The confusion arises here because neither candidate is going to have enough of the pledged delegates to get the nomination without superdelegates to put them over the top.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate needs a simple majority of 2,383 delegates (pledged or superdelegates) at the convention floor.

About 85 percent of the convention's delegates are chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent are superdelegates. So it takes a pretty huge pledged delegate margin of victory — a win of 59 to 41 percent — to take the nomination outright. Otherwise, the superdelegates have to push someone over the finish line.

 

 President Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in 2008 with votes from superdelegates. But they're not the reason he became the nominee.

This is what happened in 2008. Barack Obama did not take enough of the pledged delegates to win the nomination alone. But because Obama had narrowly beaten Clinton among the pledged delegates, the superdelegates followed the will of the voters — and gave him the nomination.

You could look at that and say that Obama won "because of" the superdelegates. And in the most literal sense possible, it'd be true. But, again, superdelegates did not make Obama the nominee — the voters did.

 

LINK

 

Quote

But to look at the aftermath of the vote count we truly have to critically evaluate the start. Hillary Clinton entered Super Tuesday in March in a virtual tie in pledged delegates with both candidates holding just about 50 pledged delegates, yet she held the support of nearly 400 super delegates. This early lead created the visual that Sanders could not defeat her for many voters, clearly affecting the race.

 

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

LINK

 

 

My original point is that it was determined by everyday voters.  If those voters made choices on what they hear in the news and based on the opinions of people they "trust", that is their decision.  And that's why they had the outcome they did.

[Moiraine]

20 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Obviously, yes.  But it still comes down to everyday voters.

 

If "establishment" means "majority" than I guess I don't have a problem with it.  I always get the impression that people think the "establishment" is a group of people in a back room saying, "I know the people want Sanders, but we're going to go ahead and nominate Hillary."

 

Maybe I'm just making incorrect assumptions...

Read the article.  The superdelegates would have went to Sanders if he had more votes.

 

 

Do campaigns have an effect on every day voters?

 

Clinton got more votes but a big factor in that is she had the full support of the DNC. It was legal but the argument is that the establishment chose her and backed her. They didn’t want Sanders to win; he’s not a real Democrat.

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

My original point is that it was determined by everyday voters.  If those voters made choices on what they hear in the news and based on the opinions of people they "trust", that is their decision.  And that's why they had the outcome they did.

 

 

I think you’re missing or ignoring the point. People can vote for whoever the hell they want for any reason. The fact of the matter is money, campaigns, and the media influence votes. If one person has the full backing of the DNC and another doesn’t, the former has an advantage when it comes to getting votes. 

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

My original point is that it was determined by everyday voters.  If those voters made choices on what they hear in the news and based on the opinions of people they "trust", that is their decision.  And that's why they had the outcome they did.

 

I don't entirely disagree. If people checked the box for Sanders overwhelmingly, he would have been the nominee (And as I've stated previously, I'm no fan of Sanders, but I'm less of a fan of the DNC). But it is the nature of the political landscape today unfortunately that people in both parties will pass over a candidate that they like most for one who "has the best chance at winning." Having the support of the DNC and its superdelegates very early in the primary gave the appearance that Hillary was "too far ahead" for Bernie to win. 

 

The superdelegate system is shady to begin with - especially for a party who complains so much about the electoral college. But they should at least have to wait to pledge their votes...

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Do campaigns have an effect on every day voters?

 

Clinton got more votes but a big factor in that is she had the full support of the DNC. It was legal but the argument is that the establishment chose her and backed her. They didn’t want Sanders to win; he’s not a real Democrat.

Voters have their own reasons for voting for whomever.  Yes, sometimes they "go with the flow".

 

Did the 2016 candidate have a minority of the votes?

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Voters have their own reasons for voting for whomever.  Yes, sometimes they "go with the flow".

 

Did the 2016 candidate have a minority of the votes?

 

 

Are you purposely missing the point? I don’t think anyone you’re conversing with is claiming Sanders got more votes, but I haven’t read every reply. 

[BigRedBuster]

Wow...this discussion is a lot different than right after the election when everyone was saying the DNC screwed over Sanders.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wow...this discussion is a lot different than right after the election when everyone was saying the DNC screwed over Sanders.

 

 

Danny is a moderate Democrat. I’m guessing he wasn’t one of those people. Not sure on funhusker. Everyone else either doesn’t have an opinion or thinks they screwed him over. 

[funhusker]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Are you purposely missing the point?

Maybe you can explain it to me.

 

Are people swayed by the media and friends for how they vote: yes

Are people ultimately responsible for their own vote: yes

Did the 2016 candidate with the most votes win: yes

 

 

[funhusker]

15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wow...this discussion is a lot different than right after the election when everyone was saying the DNC screwed over Sanders.

I don't remember being a part of that one.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

 Clinton won the nomination because more Democratic voters voted for her.  Plain and simple.

 

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11597550/superdelegates-bernie-sanders-clinton

No  because of the Russians      They wanted Trump in and figured they could help Trump by helping Hillary to get the nomination-  just thought I'd start  a new conspiracy

[funhusker]

21 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Are you purposely missing the point? I don’t think anyone you’re conversing with is claiming Sanders got more votes, but I haven’t read every reply. 

Like I said, i'm probably making wrong assumptions.

 

It just feels like people are blaming the "establishment" for his loss and it was unfair.  But the majority of votes is why she won, not some backroom deal.  I'd agree that a majority of votes were swayed by campaigns supported by people in high positions.  

 

So we agree.  I think...