We get mail
From: R———
Subject: A tip from R——-Message Body:
May we credit? Yes
Follow up with a call? No
Optional phone #
The tip:
I have been living in DE for 8 years and just found this DEM Party rag. I was looking for an answer to a question about whom among the super delegates from DE are supporting HRC; all of them. Sadly, much like Republicans, Delaware Democrats are not really interested in anything but maintaining the status quo. I have watched since moving here as the political elite in the state, both Democrats and Republicans continue to take full advantage of every opportunity to line their own pockets while squandering the money stolen from citizens and corporations on pet projects and using it to serve political allies. You should all renounce your affiliation with the Democratic party and just align with the Republicans. The only difference between you is a letter designation anyway.Perhaps I will renounce my affiliation with you. After I vote for Bernie!
R——–
My response:
Dear R——-
Welcome to Delaware and DelawareLiberal. Enjoy our Dogfish Head Beer and our corporate Democratic Party.
I will not blame you if you renounce your membership in the Democratic Party, but you should know that you are trading a somewhat useless membership for the utterly useless designation of non-aligned or independent. At least as a Democrat you have the periodic opportunity to vote in a primary for a Dem who is slightly less onerous than the other Dems, and significantly less noxious than the Republican.
Either way, it is a free country, so Cheers and fair thee well!!
Jason330
Not to be redundant but………..
Nothing is more threatening to a representative democracy than discouraging voters or disenfranchising them. Another incarnation of voter suppression and denial of access to the ballot box has surfaced in one of the most unlikely places. It is created within the Democratic Party by party rules and under the guise of the privileged “super-delegate” appointment. Clearly a creation of homage to a bygone era of aristocratic recognition within the party powerful it allowed those at the top of the pyramid of power, often beholden to the status quo of party politics, to be given access to the party convention and front row seats from which to preen. This mimicking of the English style of a “House of Lords” and a “House of Commons” would seem harmless enough until the “super-delegates” presumed that their appointment precluded any vote of the party faithful yet to come.
Although legally placed as a democratic party rule it is no less offensive than abrogating the party memberships’ vote or simply putting a match to the ballot box when these “super-delegates” preempt the primary election and pledge their allegiance and delegate vote to one candidate or the other before the votes have been cast and counted.
Let me make it perfectly clear that my challenge to this system is not based, in any way, on the individuals who are seeking the nomination. I do not care, in the least, about which candidate or candidates will be named or chosen for this benefit. It is the fact that preemptive pledging of a delegate vote will result in voter disenfranchisement, discourage voters from going to the polls, (viewed as an exercise in futility thereby suppressing the vote), and render the ballots yet to be cast as meaningless. It is an almost arrogant presumption on the part of those appointed “super-delegates” to think that they have the right and/or privilege to force their personal choice (or that of the party apparatus that they feel allegiance to) upon the voters of record before their votes are recorded.
They can still enjoy the honor and recognition of their positions within the party but they should have absolutely no right to pledge their delegate vote anywhere other than to the majority dictate of the people who actually vote.
Representative John Kowalko
Hillary is leading Sanders in popular vote (a lead of 2.5 million) and in pledged delegates (which does not include super delegates).
So please explain to me how Super Delegates are in any way relevant to the 2016 race? Indeed, the only way they are relevant is if Sanders corrupts them to vote for him rather than Hillary, thus thwarting the will of the voter.
How ironic.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
156-124 in Wyoming? Damn… Is that an NBA score or a vote count?
Well it is an accurate presumption, (in the historical context of voting), that if 450+ delegate votes are consistently and constantly added to the accumulated number despite no vote of the actual electorate having been taken (a la CNN, MSNBC etc. etc.) then there is a propensity for voters (who have yet to see the inside of a voting booth or cast a caucus ballot) to be discouraged and not bother. This is the circumstance that led all major media outlets to refrain from projecting winners until after the polls were closed. The policy of preemptively casting a ballot of support (or pledging if you wish) not only casts a pall of futility in the electorate ranks “discouraging voters and disenfranchising them” but also usurps the rights of each voters ballot to be considered after it is cast– not before. Representative democracy in America should expect nothing less from the Democratic Party.
Representative John Kowalko
In looking at the vote totals from the 2008 primary, RCP numbers showed:
Obama @ 48.1%… Clinton @ 48.0%, with the a difference of 41k votes
There are several other interesting calculations including/excluding Caucus states, Michigan…
That being said, the states with primaries left in 2016 had 2008 vote totals of 15.4 million. My meager math skills, combined with the numbers shown on the link which Mikem2784 provided, mean Bernie needs to win a straight 60% of those 15.4 million remaining votes to finish with more popular votes than Hillary.
To quote Rocco Lampone in The Godfather Part II, “Difficult, but not impossible.”
“there is a propensity for voters (who have yet to see the inside of a voting booth or cast a caucus ballot) to be discouraged”
I suppose. Shorten the primary sporting season and that issue will be reduced. As far as refrain from reporting results, then the parties are not doing their jobs by convincing people that state and local elections matter just as much. Sure the media contributes to this, but so do you politicians and party officials. If Lt Gov matters then regardless of the Presidential election outcome, I need to show up and vote. If I don’t that’s on me and you. And if I don’t understand the importance maybe I shouldn’t be voting for anything anyway.
Kowalko’s writing sounds like the left’s version of Wolfgang Von Baumgart of iPod fame.
“156-124 in Wyoming? Damn… Is that an NBA score or a vote count?”
@Prop Joe: LOL!
Wyoming Population: 586,107
Wyoming Democrats: 53,062
Wyoming Democrats voting the primary: 280
Percent turnout: 0.005%
But really. It was a big win!
I think we should keep the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire secret until after everyone else has voted. Those results have the effect of diminishing voter turnout.
There are about 200,000 registered voters in Wyoming. The Democrats did not have a primary. This was a caucus vote
http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_982125
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/sanders-become-democratic-nominee-even-if-clinton-leads-in-delegates_b_9657952.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/sanders-become-democratic-nominee-even-if-clinton-leads-in-delegates_b_9657952.html#