Wonktonodi said:
You do know he's Canadian? As for the point you were making, while the democratic party does have superdelagates, in 2008 when the media was reporting delagate count they counted them right along with the pledged delagates, this year they hold off mentioning the superdalates in reports until after they mention the other count. As for the republican system it varies widely state to state, but many are winner take all, even if the winner doesn't get over half the votes. So Trump got all the delages for some states even if over 60% of the voters didn't vote for him. If it had been a more proportional system the whole time, Trump might have been stopped. If the democrats had the winner take all system in the same states the republicans do, Hilary would already have won the democratic primary. |
Why does it matter if he is Canadian?
They counted them along with the other delegates because you had Hillary Clinton (Elite) going against Barack Obama (Elite). Both had a reasonable amount of superdelagates unlike what is currently being seen where Bernie Sanders only has 7%. Hillary Clinton was leading in superdelegates up until May 11, 2008. In 2008, they sat down and thought who would be the better candidate, the first black president or the first woman president? Seeing as how Barack Obama was holding bigger rallies and had all of the energy, they went with him and switched over these unbound superdelegates to him causing him to clinch and become the demoractic nominee on June 3rd 2008.
The reason why they are holding off in mentioning the superdelegates this time because, as I stated before, Bernie only has 7% of the superdelegates. What would be the point for some delegate analyst to go up and discuss the rigged delegate count? Let's look at Bernie Sanders chances of winning the election down 350 delegates just after two states!! Or even better, the next state was Nevada where Hillary won by like 5% of the vote over Bernie but then gained like 108 delegates that day (mainly due to MORE superdelegates). After three states it was something like 508 delegates to Bernie Sanders 77 delegates. Imagine an analyst going up to the board and discussing Bernie Sanders chances of winning and becoming the Democratic Nominee where he is down 431 delegates just after 3 states! That would be completely laughable. So it is no surprise to me and many others to see these analysts instantly say "well let's just forget about the superdelegates at this point". Holding off in mentioning these superdelegates doesn't eliminate the fact that you have a rigged "democratic" nominating process.
You had some states that were proportional, winner take all, and hybrid states. The hybrid states turned into winner take all if one candidate won the majority of the vote. Each state decided on their own rules, which is why you see such diversity. Of course you do have some instances where the elites wanted to shift the delegates in favor of the elite candidates. Take for instance Florida's winner take all state in an election that had Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, and Marco Rubio, senator of Florida. Those 99 delegates were supposed to go to one of those candidates, but ended up backfiring and going to Doanld Trump. I am not saying that the republican side is perfect, but at least the voters could elect an outsider, unlike what is perceived to be impossible on the democratic side.
**Edit** If the Democrats had some winner take all states, at least they would know ahead of time what was at stake and could therefore campaign harder in those given states. But people like Bernie Sanders have absolutely ZERO control over these superdelegates.
