(05-02-2016, 01:47 PM)Punchwood Wrote: You do realise super delegates mean fuck all. They aren't going to support the person with the fewer pledged delegates. Meaning if Bernie has more pledged delegates than Hillary they will support him, the problem is Bernie won't have more pledged than Hillary so the super delegates will keep supporting Hillary.

So basically, you are saying that Secretary Clinton will be undemocratically nominated as the "Democratic" nominee. Yes? Earlier, you were making the case that superdelegates should not vote for Senator Sanders because it is against the will of the people. Well, what about the several states that he won with the vote, but then ended up with fewer delegates than Clinton in those same states?


Here is text from a previous post (not updated for later states):

Quote:It's not hypocritical on Senator Sanders' part. As a Bernie supporter, I don't like the fact that there are superdelegates, but Bernie is playing by the DNC's rules. And where exactly is "the will of the people?" Media outlets claim that Clinton is up by two million or so votes, but there are a number of states (especially Washington) where the votes were not announced. Furthermore, there are states where Senator Sanders had victories or close losses, only to be cancelled out by the superdelegates. Examples:

• IL, Clinton wins 50.5% vs. 48.7% (78 bound + 22 unbound = 100 for Clinton vs. 78 bound + 0 unbound = 78 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• MA, Clinton wins 50.1% to 48.7% (46 bound + 16 unbound = 62 for Clinton vs. 45 bound + 1 unbound = 46 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• IA, Clinton wins 49.9% to 49.6 (23 bound + 7 unbound = 30 for Clinton vs. 21 bound + 0 unbound = 21 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• MO, Clinton wins 49.6% to 49.4% (36 bound + 11 unbound = 47 for Clinton vs. 35 bound + 0 unbound = 35 for Sanders WTF?!
  
• MI, Sanders wins 49.68% to 48.26% (63 bound + 10 unbound = 73 for Clinton vs. 67 bound + 0 unbound = 67 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• WY, Sanders wins 55.7% to 44.3% (7 bound + 4 unbound = 11 for Clinton vs. 7 bound + 0 unbound = 7 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• NE, Sanders wins 57.1% to 42.9% (10 bound + 3 unbound = 13 for Clinton vs. 15 bound + 0 unbound = 15 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• NH, Sanders wins 60.98% to 38.20% (9 bound + 6 unbound = 15 for Clinton vs. 15 bound + 0 unbound = 15 for Sanders) WTF?!
  
• MN, Sanders wins 61.6% to 38.4% (31 bound + 12 unbound = 43 for Clinton vs. 46 bound + 3 unbound = 49 for Sanders) (49÷92=.5326 vs 61.6%)
  
• HA, Sanders wins 69.8% to 30.0% (8 bound + 6 unbound = 14 for Clinton vs. 17 bound + 2 unbound = 19 for Sanders) (19÷33=.576 vs. 69.8%)
  

In Nebraska, Sanders only has two more delegates than Clinton, even though he won 57.1% of the vote. In New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wyoming, Sanders won the vote, but Clinton won as many or more delegates. In such close races in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Massachusetts, why does Clinton have many more delegates than Sanders? Illinois is a great example. Both candidates won 78 bound delegates each, but 22 superdelegates for Clinton versus zero for Sanders gives Clinton a bigger win. Literally, WTF?! In the Northern Marianas territory, Clinton won with 54.0% of the vote, but ended up with four bound and five superdelegates (nine total) versus two bound and zero superdelegates (two total) for Sanders, meaning she got 81.8% of the total delegates despite winning 54.0% of the vote. Who's against the will of the people now?

Also, let's not forget the superdelegates who have already pledged their support. Take California, my home state, for example. There are 48 superdelegates that have already endorsed Clinton versus zero for Sanders. In California, Sanders is already at a significant disadvantage, and the primary election in this state is not until June 7. Again, WTF?! If you were to exclude the superdelegates from this race altogether, Clinton would have 1,446 and Sanders with 1,205, which is close.