Ben Carson celebrates his 3rd place finish in the 16th District As the dust and clichés settle following the New York primary, two things are at least clear: 1) Donald Trump had a YOOOGE win, except in Manhattan, where people apparently know him, and 2) Somehow, Ben Carson won more votes than Ted Cruz in at least two congressional districts, which probably speaks more to Cruz's unpopularity than any last-minute surge for Carson. If there's a contested convention and Ben Carson stays awake for it, this could be very good news for John McCain.
And how many of you have exercised your 3rd Amendment rights lately? I'm guessing none. So don't be surprised when you're forced to quarter soldiers in your house. Slackers.
Back for more, Bluice? Did you watch the 2008 election? Because I sure did- now on raw numbers you are correct but the problem is those super delegates are pledged. They can unlike regular delegates change their pledges back and forth as it suits them and in 2008 they did not abandon Hillary until it became obvious that she could not win. Super delegates were created to prevent the rise of Donald Trump in the Democratic Party- I hate to say it because I like a lot of his views but Bernie is the Democratic version of Trump. I know that mathematically unlike Ted Cruz Bernie Sanders is far from eliminated but the moment Hillary reaches 2383 delegates including her super delegates it is over. That is how the Democratic system works mathematically. So really she only needs 435 more delegates.
He thinks the super delegates can abandon Hillary any time and while it's true they can change their pledges they aren't going to unless it becomes obvious Hillary cannot win. We went through this whole thing back in 2008 with Bamz and Hillary's "firewall" (not a pun no matter what any wingnut says).
I'd just really like to hear the reasoning here. I mean, apparently we've moved out of the land of reproving talking points and into Facts We Should Know, and I'm going to need some details to understand them properly.
They are seated at the Convention, at which time they can choose whomever they wish to vote for. Thus, any superdelegate who has voiced intent for Hillary or Sanders is a tentative vote, while pledged delegates MUST vote for either candidate, at least on the first ballot.
I also call them tentative, because in 2008, many who had voiced support for Clinton then switched to Obama.
That is not something the delegates people elect can do. That's the whole reason for voting in a primary or caucus, is so the people can choose their candidate to run in the General.
OK, then. I guess you really mean that both Clinton and Sanders tentatively have their superdelegates, because that's how the rules work. I took it as a suggestion that you felt there was some reason to believe that hers were in play and his weren't, since that's (inadvertantly, I'm sure) what you said.
I believe I answered above, by linking to the Wiki article, and also citing that since superdelegates did switch in 2008, that fits the denotative meaning of "tentative."
If you want to dig further into the weeds on superdelegates, there is a more detailed description and commentary on the two types of supers here (sorry, it's on dKos): http://www.dailykos.com/sto...
Pretty much. The supers ("unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates.” per DNC Rule 9.A-C) are not "in play" since the Convention has not begun.
Once the Convention gets under way and the voting begins, all those supers can do whatever they want, regardless if they said publically they were for Clinton or Sanders.
I'm actually aware of the role of superdelegates. I was looking for an explanation of your implication that hers are tentative and his aren't, but after reading your explanation above I realize that you merely used inartful phrasing and you're not making that claim. We're all good.
And how many of you have exercised your 3rd Amendment rights lately? I'm guessing none. So don't be surprised when you're forced to quarter soldiers in your house. Slackers.
Hillary has 1,446 pledged delegatesSanders has 1,200 pledged delegates
2,383 delegates needed to win.
In addition, of super delegates, who have never overturned the earned delegate leader, 502 are tentatively for Hillary, and 38 for Bernie.
There are 1,668 total delegates remaining in state primaries.
In case anyone was interested.
I went to CNN.com to watch the 7-11 clip. Is it just me or is he More Orange? Like Maximum Orange!
Stop bitching. We have a pyramid to build! Otherwise where will "Uncle" Ben store his rice?
Back for more, Bluice? Did you watch the 2008 election? Because I sure did- now on raw numbers you are correct but the problem is those super delegates are pledged. They can unlike regular delegates change their pledges back and forth as it suits them and in 2008 they did not abandon Hillary until it became obvious that she could not win. Super delegates were created to prevent the rise of Donald Trump in the Democratic Party- I hate to say it because I like a lot of his views but Bernie is the Democratic version of Trump. I know that mathematically unlike Ted Cruz Bernie Sanders is far from eliminated but the moment Hillary reaches 2383 delegates including her super delegates it is over. That is how the Democratic system works mathematically. So really she only needs 435 more delegates.
Where by tentatively you mean?
He thinks the super delegates can abandon Hillary any time and while it's true they can change their pledges they aren't going to unless it becomes obvious Hillary cannot win. We went through this whole thing back in 2008 with Bamz and Hillary's "firewall" (not a pun no matter what any wingnut says).
Personally, I want the weevils out of the grain pyramid.
Wait, is that racist? It really ought to be if I'm going to be a spokesfuck for Trump.
Ambien Walrus Vote For Carson
Love the tiny hand detail. It will so irk Drumpf.
I'd just really like to hear the reasoning here. I mean, apparently we've moved out of the land of reproving talking points and into Facts We Should Know, and I'm going to need some details to understand them properly.
bluicebank?
In the literal sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
They are seated at the Convention, at which time they can choose whomever they wish to vote for. Thus, any superdelegate who has voiced intent for Hillary or Sanders is a tentative vote, while pledged delegates MUST vote for either candidate, at least on the first ballot.
I also call them tentative, because in 2008, many who had voiced support for Clinton then switched to Obama.
That is not something the delegates people elect can do. That's the whole reason for voting in a primary or caucus, is so the people can choose their candidate to run in the General.
OK, then. I guess you really mean that both Clinton and Sanders tentatively have their superdelegates, because that's how the rules work. I took it as a suggestion that you felt there was some reason to believe that hers were in play and his weren't, since that's (inadvertantly, I'm sure) what you said.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
I believe I answered above, by linking to the Wiki article, and also citing that since superdelegates did switch in 2008, that fits the denotative meaning of "tentative."
If you want to dig further into the weeds on superdelegates, there is a more detailed description and commentary on the two types of supers here (sorry, it's on dKos): http://www.dailykos.com/sto...
Pretty much. The supers ("unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates.” per DNC Rule 9.A-C) are not "in play" since the Convention has not begun.
Once the Convention gets under way and the voting begins, all those supers can do whatever they want, regardless if they said publically they were for Clinton or Sanders.
I'm actually aware of the role of superdelegates. I was looking for an explanation of your implication that hers are tentative and his aren't, but after reading your explanation above I realize that you merely used inartful phrasing and you're not making that claim. We're all good.