Democratic WV primary + NE fake contest results thread (1st polls close @7:30ET)

[Lachi]

Lol, the hell is that

(Can't put this with a quote, because of the post count minimum for links.)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats should just go back to being pro-coal - it's difficult for republicans to get to 270 without West Virginia and Kentucky.

[IceSpear]

Democrats should just go back to being pro-coal - it's difficult for republicans to get to 270 without West Virginia and Kentucky.

Alison Lundergan Grimes and Natalie Tennant were pro coal. Grimes even hit McConnell in ads for being not pro coal enough. How did that work out again?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

> using a republican wave year as a prime example

[Xing]

> using a republican wave year as a prime example

The wave alone doesn't explain how much they lost by.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not that familiar with Tennant's campaign, but with Grimes I think she ran too far away from Obama, especially in that debate, and I also think a lot of voters who might normally be willing to consider a moderate D voted for McConnell because they knew he'd be the majority leader if he won and would really be able to "bring home the bacon".

[IceSpear]

Don't tell Reddit, but Bernie's benchmarks for the remaining states have actually gone up despite his huge win here. Going into the night he needed 65% of the remaining delegates, now he needs 66%.

[Joe Republic]

Democrats should just go back to being pro-coal - it's difficult for republicans to get to 270 without West Virginia and Kentucky.

No thanks.  The GOP can keep the voters stuck working for a dying industry that damages the environment.  We let them keep the entire South with all the racists therein, and things still worked out pretty well for us.

[Adam Griffin]

It's all over now. These ass-hats done went and cut the Democratic bloc into two pieces.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What? Judd got only 1.84?

Truly an end of an era.

[RightBehind]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

[KingSweden]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

[RightBehind]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

I'm aware Hillary is still winning without the supers, but I'm also aware the total number and difference is much less also.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

it's the principle of the matter. wulfric explicitly said he supports superdelegates because they're undemocratic.

[KingSweden]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

I'm aware Hillary is still winning without the supers, but I'm also aware the total number and difference is much less also.

Of course it is, and super delegates should be drastically reduced. But it's not like things would be THAT different if the Democratic Party didn't have them.

[IceSpear]

It's all over now. These ass-hats done went and cut the Democratic bloc into two pieces.

Freedom trend! Hopefully by the next primary this can become majority Republican.

[Joe Republic]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

it's the principle of the matter. wulfric explicitly said he supports superdelegates because they're undemocratic.

Is Wulfric the DNC chairman?  Is he even a Democrat?  He's not even the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Plus, remember his opinions on how the Republicans should conduct their primaries?  Where the party chairman could literally throw out any candidate he chooses before any votes have been cast?  Wulfric is not someone whose opinions on anything should be taken seriously.

[AelroseB]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.

They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.

Except you're not being overruled. Even without supers Hillary would be winning. She has won more primaries, she has won more states, she has wok BIGGER states, she has won more delegates, and she has three million more votes. This is not a conspiracy, your voices are not being "unheard." The Democrats have no obligation to cater their process to one man's supporters at the expense of the whole party. I personally think supers should be slashed in # dramatically and caucuses eliminated, but Hillary has won fair and square.

it's the principle of the matter. wulfric explicitly said he supports superdelegates because they're undemocratic.

Is Wulfric the DNC chairman?  Is he even a Democrat?  He's not even the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Plus, remember his opinions on how the Republicans should conduct their primaries?  Where the party chairman could literally throw out any candidate he chooses before any votes have been cast?  Wulfric is not someone whose opinions on anything should be taken seriously.

There is literally nothing wrong with parties having an arbitrary rule by certain political oligarchs who have much more expertise than voters.