Congratulations to Bernie Sanders for his NH Win!

[MineralMan]

He's surprising lots of people. Still, there are still 48 states yet to hold their primary events. Now is not the time to assume that IA and NH will predict the final outcome. Instead, it is time to work hard for your favorite candidate. The process will continue, either way. Eventually, there will be a Democratic nominee.

It's too early to start fretting over election-fixing, superdelegate takeovers, and other conspiracy theory stuff in this election year. On schedule, each state will have its caucuses or primaries. That's where the focus should be. The nominee will be the person who navigates that process well enough to amass a majority of delegates for the Democratic National Convention.

Watch the delegate count. Work hard for your candidate. Anything else is just a distraction, really.

[One of the 99]

1. K & R!!!!!

[KittyWampus]

2. Yes indeed, celebrate while it lasts. His delegate count will not catch up.

[MineralMan]

3. I don't know. I simply check the delegate count after

each primary event. This is an interesting primary season. I have an idea how it will go, but I've been wrong before about that. We shall see, as time goes by.

[Kentonio]

4. His delegate count is currently ahead. Unpledged delegates don't count until the convention.

[MineralMan]

6. I always keep unpledged delegates out of my mind

during the primary season. I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum that one of the candidates will have the necessary majority of delegates well before the convention. Once that happens, the unpledged superdelegates will become irrelevant. If it doesn't happen, I expect that a number of those unpledged delegates will very carefully consider changing their votes to match the mood of the public.

I don't think the superdelegates will come into play, though. I think this will be settled well before the convention, as the larger states with more delegates hold their primary events.

[Kentonio]

7. +1

[rhett o rick]

8. After Iowa and NH, he leads in delegate count. You must be using Clinton math.

That's what we have to watch out for. I think we lost some Iowa delegates to Clinton math.

[KittyWampus]

9. The Super Delegates are mostly with Clinton. LOL!

[rhett o rick]

10. A yes the Establishment. Intended to keep out anyone not in the Establishment.

But I don't think you can count your chickens quite yet. We are going to put some pressure on them to get them to yield to the win of the People. A concept that some abhor.

But how sad that Democrats side with the Establishment that is not democratic. Using Citizens United and the Corp-Media to subvert actual democracy. And using "Super-Delegates" the epitome of anti-democracy. But the Conservative Wing believes that all's fair is screwing the People.

[DesertRat]

11. On whom are you going to put pressure

"to get them to yield to the win of the People." The Democratic Party?

[rhett o rick]

12. The individual super-delegates. Their purpose is to see that the will of the people prevails unless

there is a crazy person winning. That doesn't apply here therefore, to be honestly "democratic" they should support the will of the People and not Goldman-Sachs.

[R B Garr]

13. Didn't Hillary have to abide by the Delegate count

in 2008 after winning the popular vote? Are there separate rules for Sanders?

[rhett o rick]

14. I am not sure what it is you are asking. No separate rules for Sanders. Super-delegates

are special people that are in the Establishment of the Democratic Party. I think the intention was to have some "special people" in a position to unseat a popular candidate that might be a crack pot. But it is used by the Establishment to hamper all candidates other than the Establishment candidate. Almost all of them have indicated they will vote for Clinton which is totally undemocratic.

[R B Garr]

15. So Hillary wasn't "Establishment" in 2008 when she

lost the Delegate count? Interesting......

Basically, it looks like you have your outrage conspiracy all set to go. Hillary must surrender to the Delegate count in 2008, but the Delegates are a conspiracy if they don't add up for Bernie. Got it.

[rhett o rick]

16. No the Establishment in 2008 backed Obama. What conspiracy? The DNC is all Clinton.

the Corp-Media is all Clinton. All the Big Money is all Clinton. Citizens United benefits Clinton. And almost all of the super-delegates support Clinton. It's a tough fight to beat the Big Money Establishment but the People will prevail.

There are two sides to this class war and Clinton is a strong member ($50 million) of the Wealthy 1%. Why Democrats would bow down to the Wealthy is beyond me. I guess they think that 50 million living in poverty is collateral damage for the billionaires to continue to gain wealth.

[R B Garr]

17. So you respond with more conspiracies.

By your own definition, Clinton was not Establishment in 2008. Now she's nothing but Establishment. How does that work. She was forced to abide by the Delegate count in 2008, but it's a big conspiracy now that it might affect Sanders in the same way it affected Clinton.

And LOL at your sidebars about the poor and Citizens United. More Squirrel.

[rhett o rick]

18. It's very interesting when people want to hide from conspiracies. Want to pretend that they don't

exist. I don't for a minute believe that NBC gets together with CBS to promote the Wealthy at the expense of the 99%, but I do believe that both share the same goal to eliminate the progressive agenda. As far as the Establishment, they can be fickle. To pretend that there isn't such a beast is pure denial. Since 2008 Clinton has done a lot to make the Establishment happy.

Ah yes let's chat about Citizens United. When that decision was made almost all Democrats were against it. But now the Clinton campaign is using it to it's full worth, knowing that they can't compete on a level playing field. Clinton pretends to be anti-Citizens United but that doesn't stop her from using it. Can you spell HYPOCRISY?

[R B Garr]

19. So you have no cogent answer as to why Clinton had

to abide by the Delegate count in 2008, but it's an outrage conspiracy if it affects Sanders.

You have no cogent answer as to why Hillary was.not "Establishment" in 2008 since you say "they" backed Obama. But now she's Establishment, since"they" can be fickle.

So, yup, your built-in outrage conspiracy is in full tilt.

[rhett o rick]

20. I won't answer the first because it's a STRAWMAN argument. I have never said that

Sanders should be treated special. I don't think he should. I do think the super-delegate system is bogus because it allows people in the Establishment to vote without any ties to what the People want.

I don't know the reason the Establishment wanted Obama over Clinton but can guess. Obama was a sure winner over the Republicons while Clinton wasn't a good choice as she isn't again today. The Establishment choose the better of the two.

The Establishment would rather see a Republicon than a Progressive and that's why they support Clinton who will lose to the Republicons.

You speak of outrage in the pejorative and I think that's sad for a Democrat. I am outraged that we have 50,000,000 people incl 16,000,000 children living in poverty and yet the Conservative Wing of our Party is more interested in assuring Goldman-Sachs more and more and more profits than doing anything about poverty, joblessness, mass incarceration, college students that can't afford school, SS and Medicare.

I am outraged that some "Democrats" worship the wealthy American Aristocracy that the Clintons represent.

[R B Garr]

21. So the "Establishment" chose Obama.

And the popular vote didn't matter.

Right? According to your conspiracy, that is.

[rhett o rick]

22. You have an interesting way of carrying on a discussion. I never said that the popular vote didn't

matter, did I? I think Obama won by a delegate margin of 312 delegates. The Super-Delegates helped greatly.

[R B Garr]

23. Well, the conspiracy theories become so layered

that's it's hard to find the starting/ending point to it all. Which is pretty much the point. Conspiracy theories are all self-serving to a pre-determined outcome, which your own theories have shown.

[rhett o rick]

25. My conspiracy theories are very simple. The Wealthy 1% want more wealth. They

are willing to buy influence in our government. Stop me if I am going to fast. They give money to candidates, either directly to their personal accounts, to their campaigns, to their special foundations, etc. So far what can you refute? The Clintons have amassed approx 150,000,000 dollars in the last decade from people that expect quid pro quo. Are you still with me?

So now let me ask you. With 150,000,000 dollars accumulated so far, do you really think that H. Clinton's priority is helping the 50,000,000 living in poverty? Do you really not understand the concept of quid pro quo or do you think it only applies in cases other than H. Clinton? Do you put the Wealthy above helping the poor? Or do you think that if you are supportive of the Wealthy that they will like you?

Personally I think it's immoral to put supporting the wealthy above helping the poor.

[Iliyah]

5. Congrats to BS!

Congrats to HRC as well for IA.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. The $6 million + he has raised in ~20 hours is not really a distraction.

But I do appreciate your post.


Thanks

[Jenny_92808]

26. Thom Hartman

explained today that the superdelegate's votes can change to lean toward the popular vote. The superdelegates can switch their votes.