I wonder about something. Not that familiar with the American system (yet), so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. So I am reading that people are registered as Republican or Democrat voters. Let's say there is a person who is a teacher and has a tradition of voting Republican. What I wonder is how people like that feel now that there are just these clowns available for election. Do people like that really in their right mind go and vote for someone like Trump or Cruz, even if their programs go completely against the mind set that someone like a teacher might have? How fixed is this whole "registering Democrat or Republican"? Can you change that? And how long does it take?
Don't learn about USA from a political forum on a USA bands website. I'm pretty sure all the information you seek that was posted was erroneous. To answer your question, and with regard to primary's and caucuses, if you are registered (by choice) republican or democrat, you must cast your vote in said primary or caucus accordingly. You can however, designate yourself "independent" or "undecided" (unsure label but look it up or count on poorly segmented information here) and vote either way. Turns out in Iowa and New Hampshire, "undecided" tends to favor republicans end of day. At the real end of the day, we only really vote between two people. And we cast our votes, generally as USA, with one or the other.
If you voted me in, I would Make America Great Again.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
Over the past week, Clinton has picked up the endorsements of 87 more party insiders known as superdelegates, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders added just 11 superdelegates.
If these delegates to the party's national convention continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.
After the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that throws Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment into stark relief.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
Over the past week, Clinton has picked up the endorsements of 87 more party insiders known as superdelegates, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders added just 11 superdelegates.
If these delegates to the party's national convention continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.
After the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that throws Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment into stark relief.
Just sick. How in the hell is this legal? And why aren't mobs of people protesting in the streets? Obviously actual regular citizens have absolutely no hand in electing their nominees. Their votes are rendered utterly useless - I don't even know they would bother under this system. Either fix this, or use a different system. Canada's method of choosing party leaders seems to work just fine.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Those crazy Kooky dems'.Did you really think the machine would let Hillary loose to Bernie?
I have no idea why you are making it an issue specific to one party. I'm not. And no, I didn't think the machine would let Hillary lose to Bernie. That has impact on what I just said in my post though.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
notice how trump mocks the pope i dont support either but i see the early signs foretold... whether or not trump ever succeeds he could be the start of new fads with the presidentials in near future politics is a dead horse...
PJ,Because both parties choose their candidates differently.The left uses a more back room handshake deal thing.The right does it differently.Its whacky
PJ,Because both parties choose their candidates differently.The left uses a more back room handshake deal thing.The right does it differently.Its whacky
Interesting, and indeed wacky. I assumed that the process is fixed across parties, silly me, lol, that would be too logical I looked it up:
"The answer depends on the party. Democrats will have approximately 712 superdelegates at their national convention. That’s out of a total of 4,051, meaning that superdelegates make up about 15 percent of the total delegates at play in the Democratic Party’s nominating process.
Republicans have fewer superdelegates, both as an absolute number and as a share of the total delegates available. Additionally, the superdelegate system functions slightly differently in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, which I’ll get to in a moment. Broadly speaking, though, the Republican Party will have 168 superdelegates out of 2,472, or about seven percent of the total delegates at play.
There are, however, big differences in how the parties treat superdelegates. This is in part because “superdelegate” is informal slang, not official terminology used by either party. The term is generally used to refer to unpledged or unbound delegates — folks who can vote for whichever candidate they want at the party’s national convention, regardless of how the primary or caucus in their home state turns out.
For Democrats, superdelegate status is given to all current Democratic governors, senators, and congressional representatives, as well as certain big-city mayors and state lawmakers. In addition, all former Democratic presidents, vice presidents, U.S. Senate leaders, and speakers of the House are superdelegates, as is President Obama. Lastly, members of the Democratic National Committee are superdelegates as well. All superdelegates can vote for whomever they want at the convention — that’s what makes them super!
But for the GOP, it’s a bit different. The Republican Party’s unbound delegates are the 168 members of the Republican National Committee — but in 2016, they won’t be allowed to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. They normally wold be given this luxury, but the RNC ruled this year that these “unbound” delegates wouldn’t, in fact, be unbound at all. They’ll have to support whomever their state supports, just like regular ol’ delegates.
This raises the question, of course, of what exactly makes Republican superdelegates so “super.” And, at least as far as 2016 is concerned, the answer is ... nothing, really. Like so much of politics, it’s just for show."
What the fuck???? Wow, hopefully the next president does something about all this bullshit in the primaries. And now I will ask again why there aren't massive protests in the streets against this shit. If I didn't know any better I would assume it's criminal.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not sure any President can fix these kind of shenanigans in the primaries. These are essentially party elections, with members of the party deciding who will be their nominee. In November we as a country decide who of those nominees will be the next president. Until then though the parties themselves are free to make up their own standards and practices within rules they've pretty much written for themselves. As an independent here in Massachusetts, if I want to vote in either party's primary I need to declare myself as a member of that party on the way in the door and then unenroll on the way out. None of these candidates are inspiring enough for me to do that so I will probably sit it out.
I'm not sure any President can fix these kind of shenanigans in the primaries. These are essentially party elections, with members of the party deciding who will be their nominee. In November we as a country decide who of those nominees will be the next president. Until then though the parties themselves are free to make up their own standards and practices within rules they've pretty much written for themselves. As an independent here in Massachusetts, if I want to vote in either party's primary I need to declare myself as a member of that party on the way in the door and then unenroll on the way out. None of these candidates are inspiring enough for me to do that so I will probably sit it out.
True, members of the party, but every citizen can be a member of the party and vote if they want to, and all this crap makes them pretty irrelevant.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The superdelegate system was enacted in the 1980s to give the Democratic Establishment more influence in determining the party’s presidential nominee, and as the DNC opens the floodgates to donations from special interests, the future of the party is auctioned off to the highest bidder.
No matter what the original intentions were, in 2016 the Super Delegate system has become the perfect illustration of a party establishment trying to dictate to its members who their nominee will be. It is an infuriating situation to watch unfold.
No matter what the original intentions were, in 2016 the Super Delegate system has become the perfect illustration of a party establishment trying to dictate to its members who their nominee will be. It is an infuriating situation to watch unfold.
Almost as infuriating as watching the govt do nothing when an entire city is poisoned by the water they have to live on.
But yeah, talk about a rigged system that doesn't even seem to be embarrassed by their publicly well known corruption.
Former President Bill Clinton on Monday met in secret (no press allowed) with roughly 100 leaders of South Florida’s Jewish community, and, as the Times of Israel reports, “He vowed that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would make it one of her top priorities to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance.” He also “stressed the close bond that he and his wife have with the State of Israel.”https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-with-little-notice-vows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel/
Former President Bill Clinton on Monday met in secret (no press allowed) with roughly 100 leaders of South Florida’s Jewish community, and, as the Times of Israel reports, “He vowed that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would make it one of her top priorities to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance.” He also “stressed the close bond that he and his wife have with the State of Israel.”https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-with-little-notice-vows-to-embrace-an-extremist-agenda-on-israel/
Isn't it amazing how when rich men meet they all somehow walk away wealthier...
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Over the past week, Clinton has picked up the endorsements of 87 more party insiders known as superdelegates, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders added just 11 superdelegates.
If these delegates to the party's national convention continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.
After the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that throws Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment into stark relief.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8/despite-nh-loss-dem-insiders-boost-clintons-delegate-lead
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And no, I didn't think the machine would let Hillary lose to Bernie. That has impact on what I just said in my post though.
whether or not trump ever succeeds he could be the start of new fads with the presidentials
in near future
politics is a dead horse...
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
http://www.bustle.com/articles/142215-how-many-superdelegates-are-there-in-2016-the-definition-is-actually-pretty-murky
"The answer depends on the party. Democrats will have approximately 712 superdelegates at their national convention. That’s out of a total of 4,051, meaning that superdelegates make up about 15 percent of the total delegates at play in the Democratic Party’s nominating process.
Republicans have fewer superdelegates, both as an absolute number and as a share of the total delegates available. Additionally, the superdelegate system functions slightly differently in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, which I’ll get to in a moment. Broadly speaking, though, the Republican Party will have 168 superdelegates out of 2,472, or about seven percent of the total delegates at play.
There are, however, big differences in how the parties treat superdelegates. This is in part because “superdelegate” is informal slang, not official terminology used by either party. The term is generally used to refer to unpledged or unbound delegates — folks who can vote for whichever candidate they want at the party’s national convention, regardless of how the primary or caucus in their home state turns out.
For Democrats, superdelegate status is given to all current Democratic governors, senators, and congressional representatives, as well as certain big-city mayors and state lawmakers. In addition, all former Democratic presidents, vice presidents, U.S. Senate leaders, and speakers of the House are superdelegates, as is President Obama. Lastly, members of the Democratic National Committee are superdelegates as well. All superdelegates can vote for whomever they want at the convention — that’s what makes them super!
But for the GOP, it’s a bit different. The Republican Party’s unbound delegates are the 168 members of the Republican National Committee — but in 2016, they won’t be allowed to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. They normally wold be given this luxury, but the RNC ruled this year that these “unbound” delegates wouldn’t, in fact, be unbound at all. They’ll have to support whomever their state supports, just like regular ol’ delegates.
This raises the question, of course, of what exactly makes Republican superdelegates so “super.” And, at least as far as 2016 is concerned, the answer is ... nothing, really. Like so much of politics, it’s just for show."
What the fuck????
Wow, hopefully the next president does something about all this bullshit in the primaries.
And now I will ask again why there aren't massive protests in the streets against this shit. If I didn't know any better I would assume it's criminal.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Endorsements rollling in
http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But yeah, talk about a rigged system that doesn't even seem to be embarrassed by their publicly well known corruption.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."