Once again the savages who spew vomit onto the Internet from the safe bubble of The Daily Banter are lying about the delegate math in the Democrat primary process, hoping to discourage leftist supporters of Bernie Sanders. Since Banter moderators like to delete comments that do not grovel before their hacks, I have reproduced mine below.

This argument is dishonest on its face. You are counting the super delegates—who are uncommitted and generally side with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates by convention—in with Clinton’s overall delegate count. Remove those super delegates and Sanders is behind by only a couple hundred, and is narrowing that gap with last night’s win in Wisconsin. You know this for a fact. If Sanders wins in Wyoming on Saturday and does well in New York on the 19th, that gap could be eliminated altogether, and wins in Maryland and Pennsylvania would put him ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates. And if he takes California, it’s over for your candidate.

So stop lying. Sanders has plenty of money to take him all the way to your party’s convention and as long as there is such a narrow lead for Clinton in pledged delegates, it is still quite possible for him to win the nomination. You can dismiss his chances all you want, insult his supporters until they all flock over to my party, sneer at the chances of his policies being implemented despite that—at least in some states—some already have been, but you’re fooling no one who doesn’t want to be fooled. You guys are on track to blow yet another election that should have been in the bag for your preferred candidate for the same reasons you lost in 2004 and 2000: you can’t seem to wrap your heads around the concept that votes are not owned by any one politician or political party, and you refuse to understand that relentlessly attacking the very people whose votes you claim are so crucial to victory isn’t having the effect you desire and in fact is having the opposite effect.

Grow up and look at the writing on the wall.

DailyBanterScreenCap04062016a

UPDATE: 5:00PM

Leave it to The Intercept to do a story on the undemocratic nature of super delegates.

The DNC has defended the current system. Speaking on CNN, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the current chair of the party, explained that superdelegates “exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” In other words, they’re essentially a damper in case the voters get carried away with a candidate who isn’t a mainstream Democrat.

So what we have here is Schultz flat out admitting that super delegates exist solely to prevent the public from having a say in who is nominated to run for the office of the presidency. That is a major reason why I left the Democrat Party: it stopped being democratic years ago. I was a precinct committee member on the executive committee in the aughts. I saw first hand how party leaders thwarted the will of voters and regular precinct committee members by ending debate and ignoring publicly held votes. Some of those leaders, by the way, are presently serving prison sentences for corruption.

If Sanders wins enough delegates to end Clinton’s lead and heads to the convention with the majority of pledged delegates only to be denied the nomination anyway, we may well see a split int the party the likes of which are already on display on the GOPher side.

Advertisements