While the media remains organized in their attempts to focus on republicans and their hyped disarray, the real story is systematically being squelched: the fact that a Socialist would be winning the democrat ticket if not for the bizarre rules on super delegates. If the dems had the same primary rules as the repubs, Sanders would be winning. Thus, if anyone should go 3rd party, it is Sanders and the left wingers. Of course, that would split the Left and guarantee a landslide win for Trump, which is exactly why you hear nothing of it in the lame-stream media. They are scared shitless right now; you will hear nothing. Maybe Sanders will soon have his fill of Clinton's pre-ordination, and go 3rd party. Although he would then have to contend with the Clinton criminal machine, and we know how that can end up.

How scared you?

Is it really a super delegate travesty at this point? Seems like there have been more total votes for Clinton than Sanders. Where's the injustice?

Automatik;1795566 wrote:How scared you?

I'm scared that we will either have Trump or Hillary as President.

Automatik;1795566 wrote:How scared you?

Scary is a socialist beating a (proclaimed) democrat in about 20 states in the USA. He's batting .670 in the last 15.

Con_Alma;1795568 wrote:Is it really a super delegate travesty at this point? Seems like there have been more total votes for Clinton than Sanders. Where's the injustice?

Would that have been true if these super-delegates didn't announce their preferences until after the primaries? No way to know, but things could quite possibly have been a whole different story.

sleeper;1795570 wrote:I'm scared that we will either have Trump or Hillary as President.

I'm less scared than disgusted. The country, being far greater than the government, will survive either way.

Are you just parroting Trump talking points?

What the hell are you talking about?
Clinton leads in pledged delegates 1,716 to 1,433. Clinton is still on pace to take the nominee if she wins California with pledged delegates.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

The super delegates are not bizarre in the sense they have been around for years, and are clearly known about and factored into the delegate count.
D's also award delegates proportionally, so no winner take all. So, in order to win, Sanders has to win like 60-80% of votes from here on out to simply catch Clinton on pledged delegates.
Clinton is ahead of the pace Obama was back in 08 and we never heard of a 3rd party run even then.
Come on QO, this is even a stretch for you.

queencitybuckeye;1795572 wrote:Would that have been true if these super-delegates didn't announce their preferences until after the primaries? No way to know, but things could quite possibly have been a whole different story.

That to a degree is my point. To definitively say Sanders would be winning is if the super dels were not yet in played is at best speculation.

There's no way to know. There's certainly no way to declare such.

I heard that if anyone wants to go third party, they have until tomorrow to declare and to get on the ballots. Time to get on Texas ballot has already expired.

queencitybuckeye;1795574 wrote:I'm less scared than disgusted. The country, being far greater than the government, will survive either way.

I'm with you.

It's only 4 years.

ptown_trojans_1;1795579 wrote:
The super delegates are not bizarre in the sense they have been around for years, and are clearly known about and factored into the delegate count.

The parties have the right to select their candidate however they choose, but the plain fact is these super-delegates exist to make sure a Trump doesn't happen in their party. While it's somewhat interesting to call a U.S. Senator an outsider, in comparison he is exactly that. Sanders would have had to win the elected delegates by a landslide to get the nomination of the "party of the people".

Con_Alma;1795580 wrote: There's certainly no way to declare such.

There's certainly no way that's an accident, either. 15% is effective control of the party.

...and yet not enough to be able to declare without doubt that Sanders would be winning at this point as was done in the opening statement.

queencitybuckeye;1795583 wrote:The parties have the right to select their candidate however they choose, but the plain fact is these super-delegates exist to make sure a Trump doesn't happen in their party. While it's somewhat interesting to call a U.S. Senator an outsider, in comparison he is exactly that. Sanders would have had to win the elected delegates by a landslide to get the nomination of the "party of the people".

I highly doubt the super delegates would stay with Clinton if Sanders overtakes her pledged delegate wise.

Thing is, that's not going to happen unless Sanders pulls a huge upset in Cal.
The math says it is nearly impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton in pledged delegates.

Con_Alma;1795585 wrote:...and yet not enough to be able to declare without doubt that Sanders would be winning at this point as was done in the opening statement.

Correct, there's no way to prove that. Sec. Clinton may well have won anyway. That the system was gamed from the start just made sure

If Sanders could pull out a win in California he would have a strong case to swing super delegates at the convention. RCP has him down by less than 10 points in CA with a few weeks to go. He was down in many other states that he eventually won. He is smart to stay in for the sole reason being the FBI investigation of HRC and the other two FOIA court cases that are actively/currently going on. However, Joe Biden would probably get the nod at the convention.

Indeed. There's no way to know...as you previously stated.

It's just inaccurate to state otherwise.

Sanders would have to pull off a Michigan miracle to win in Cal.
Currently the poll average is he is down by 14 points.
538 has the Clinton with a 87% of winning in Cal.

If Clinton wins Cal, it is officially over.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

Sanders is most likely staying in the race because he has the money, he wants to get his message out, he wants a lot of his platforms to make the convention, and for the reason outlined above, in case the FBI probe goes way bad for Clinton.

I still don't get the 3rd party run. Who is saying, other than the Trump, he should go 3rd party?

ptown_trojans_1;1795593 wrote:...
Sanders is most likely staying in the race because he has the money, he wants to get his message out, he wants a lot of his platforms to make the convention, ...

Right...because the whole thing was a "political movement" as opposed to a Presidential bid.

Con_Alma;1795595 wrote:Right...because the whole thing was a "political movement" as opposed to a Presidential bid.

Hey. I'm with you, that's his thinking, not mine. I also don't buy into his "movement"

Well, you have many saying Trump will get trounced and his unfavorables are high etc, but so are clintons' and she is despised by many. He has won a bunch of states, why should he not consider it, especially if he truly believes his propaganda, I mean message.

ptown_trojans_1;1795593 wrote: I still don't get the 3rd party run. Who is saying, other than the Trump, he should go 3rd party?

That is precisely my point; no one (main stream media) is saying it because God forbid it splits the left and makes it a cakewalk for Trump. Yet, it is a far, far more compelling scenario for Bern to go 3rd party, than anyone else in recent memory. But of course, NO ONE is saying it, obviously. When the media has been running interference for her why would they do anything to undermine their stance.

QuakerOats;1795603 wrote:That is precisely my point; no one (main stream media) is saying it because God forbid it splits the left and makes it a cakewalk for Trump. Yet, it is a far, far more compelling scenario for Bern to go 3rd party, than anyone else in recent memory. But of course, NO ONE is saying it, obviously. When the media has been running interference for her why would they do anything to undermine their stance.

No one is saying it cause no one thinks it is plausible.
What you want the media to talk about something that is not plausible just to simply bring it up?

That is exactly what they have been doing for 4 months on the repub side. Tell the country the GOP is in complete disarray and now is the time for a 3rd party candidate to emerge and wrest control away from Donald etc..etc...... It really is hysterical to watch their blatant attempts at manipulation.


When the shoe is on the other foot ........oh boy; look out.


They could quite easily point out the fact that the supers coronated clinton early on to hand her the win, yet Sanders has won a ton of states and perhaps should consider a 3rd party run, especially since HE REALLY IS A 3RD PARTY (socialist).