Super Saturday Delegate Count

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On the GOP side:

Kansas: 24 for Cruz, 9 for Trump, 6 for Rubio, 1 for Kasich

Kentucky: 17 for Trump, 15 for Cruz, 7 for Rubio, 7 for Kasich

Louisiana: 18 for Cruz, 18 for Trump, 5 for Rubio, 0 for Kasich

Maine: 12 for Cruz, 9 for Trump, 2 for Kasich, 0 for Rubio

Totals: Trump has 382, Cruz has 300, Rubio has 128, and Kasich has 35. A candidate needs 1,237 to win the nomination.

On the Dem side:

Kansas: 23 for Sanders, 10 for Clinton

Louisiana: 35 for Clinton, 12 for Sanders

Nebraska: 14 for Sanders, 10 for Clinton

Totals: Clinton has 651 pledged delegates and 458 superdelegates for a total of 1,121. Sanders has 456 pledged delegates and 22 superdelegates for a total of 481. To secure the nomination, a candidate needs a total of 2,382.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...y-recap-winners-losers-and-delegates-n2129490

It seems like Cruz can actually catch up to Trump. He is a lot closer relatively to Trump than Bernie is to Hillary.

Some accounts/polling also have Bernie winning Maine today.

 

[untermensche]

The remnants of the Republican party are Desperate for Cruz to win so he can lose to Hillary with a fractured and uninspired Republican turnout.

A Trump win excites a lot of people.

Many very disturbed people, but this is who the Republicans have courted for years.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

[h=1]Rico Republican Primary, NBC News Projects[/h] by Leigh Ann Caldwell




Another day another primary. This time it was in Puerto Rico where residents of the tiny island chose Marco Rubio for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.
Marco Rubio had a commanding lead with about 30 percent of precincts reporting, taking 74 percent of the vote. Donald Trump in second place in the teens, while Ted Cruz was barely touching double digits.
Residents of Puerto Rico can't vote in the general election but can vote in the party's primary to award candidates a total of 23 delegates. Only Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who has won only one of 20 contests up until Sunday, spent any time campaigning there. He visited the U.S. territory Saturday for the second time.

 

[untermensche]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

Nobody cared when it was Obama.

But I agree, undemocratic, on purpose.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

They have been the ones to complain more in recent elections, but right now I think the Republican party wish they had it to vote Trump out.

On a different question. Since each party wants to protect it's party image, what prevents somebody with the opposite ideals from running or registering as that party. What would prevent Sanders from registering as a Republican and running on that ticket so you could have the chance of two Democrats actually running.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Update

Today's Maine counts are coming in...

With 25 Maine delegates at stake, Sanders is assured of winning at least 14 while Clinton stands to gain at least six.

Therefore, so far, the weekend total counts are Bernie: 63 and Hillary: 61 with 5 yet to be determined but probably more for Bernie and Hillary.

But even so, Bernie has to win around 60% of the delegates to beat Hillary's super delegate pledges. So he actually lost the weekend.

 

[Derec]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

Blame McGovern.

 

[repoman]

Nah man, fuck that. Blame nigger hater George Wallace and the fucking piece of shit southern racists.

Too bad he wasn't killed when shot.

 

[bilby]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

I am still shocked at the American concept of 'Primary elections'. Everywhere else in the world, party candidates are selected by the party, and the voters just pick which party to support; or they can vote for an independent who puts himself forward as an effective 'party of one'.

Adding more stuff that gets voted on to a representative democracy doesn't necessarily add any democracy, nor does it necessarily improve the lot of the citizens. America has, IMO, far too many elected positions to be an effective democracy. Voting for judges, voting for senior government officials, voting for the holder of executive power (rather than having those powers assigned by the elected legislature), and voting for party candidates in primary elections seems to be overdoing it.

All you get as a result is apathy and low turnouts, as citizens don't have the time to assess the suitability of hundreds of candidates to fill dozens of positions.

I prefer to have the representative I voted in do his job, and select suitable people to fill the executive, judicial and civil service positions; and I don't see how a political party is even worthy of the name if it doesn't choose, as a party, who its candidates are.

Having voters choose civil servants is a recipe for getting extremists and people who won't do the job properly - county clerks, for example, should follow the law, not try to impose their opinions on it. An appointed county clerk would issue marriage licences in accordance with the law, and not her personal beliefs; and if she didn't, she could easily be fired and replaced. Why the fuck is a paper shuffling position filled by popular vote of the citizens??

It seems to me that the US political system is a classic example of why 'intelligent' design gets sub-optimal results more often than evolution. The US system was designed; the rest of the world uses whatever system survived millennia of revolution, civil war, and coups d' état, where nobody sat down and said "How do we ensure that the people have power?", but instead they asked "How do we stop the peasants from revolting again?". The latter approach is a LOT slower, but leads to a much more efficient result. Giving the citizens choices they don't want is not a recipe for success - unless you WANT fanatics and extremists running the place.

 

[dismal]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

I am still shocked at the American concept of 'Primary elections'. Everywhere else in the world, party candidates are selected by the party, and the voters just pick which party to support; or they can vote for an independent who puts himself forward as an effective 'party of one'.

They could do it that way if they wanted to.

I think they like the appearance of democracy in the process, if not the actual thing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am still shocked at the American concept of 'Primary elections'. Everywhere else in the world, party candidates are selected by the party, and the voters just pick which party to support; or they can vote for an independent who puts himself forward as an effective 'party of one'.

There are primaries over here too, as well as in a number of other countries (e.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election )

 

[ksen]

I am still shocked at the American concept of 'Primary elections'. Everywhere else in the world, party candidates are selected by the party, and the voters just pick which party to support; or they can vote for an independent who puts himself forward as an effective 'party of one'.

They could do it that way if they wanted to.

I think they like the appearance of democracy in the process, if not the actual thing.

Isn't that kind of how we used to do it before people got pissed off at "smokey back rooms" or whatever?

 

[dismal]

The wikipedia suggests that primaries started up in the early 1900s as part of the progressive movement but were non-binding and often ignored.

As recently as 1968 Humphrey won the Dem nomination without winning a primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

 

[Derec]

The wikipedia suggests that primaries started up in the early 1900s as part of the progressive movement but were non-binding and often ignored.

As recently as 1968 Humphrey won the Dem nomination without winning a primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

Something similar was happening with the US Senate as early as 19th century. The senators were selected by their respective state legislatures but many states had non-binding elections nevertheless. Then we got the 17th amendment in 1913.

 

[dismal]

The wikipedia suggests that primaries started up in the early 1900s as part of the progressive movement but were non-binding and often ignored.

As recently as 1968 Humphrey won the Dem nomination without winning a primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

Something similar was happening with the US Senate as early as 19th century. The senators were selected by their respective state legislatures but many states had non-binding elections nevertheless. Then we got the 17th amendment in 1913.

The big difference there is one is an elected office whose manner of election is prescribed in the Constitution and the other is a private club that can pick its candidate however it wants.

You could start a political party and have the candidate selected by height or in a dance-off. Whatever you feel serves your party best.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You could start a political party and have the candidate selected by height or in a dance-off. Whatever you feel serves your party best.

Well, shit. Now that you've put the idea in my head, any type of candidate selection process which doesn't involve a dance-off just seems lame to me.

Way to ruin the election, dude. I mean ... even more than the current crop of candidates being the ones who are running had already ruined it, of course.

 

[bilby]

You could start a political party and have the candidate selected by height or in a dance-off. Whatever you feel serves your party best.

Well, shit. Now that you've put the idea in my head, any type of candidate selection process which doesn't involve a dance-off just seems lame to me.

Way to ruin the election, dude. I mean ... even more than the current crop of candidates being the ones who are running had already ruined it, of course.

The Russians used to pick their rulers that way; and this pre-revolutionary tradition lives on in the west as the TV show 'Dancing with the Tsars'. I saw an episode once; Peter and Catherine were great; but Ivan was terrible.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am still shocked at your Democratic party's concept of "super delegates". It seems antithetical to democracy, putting even more power and influence in the hands of the powerful and influential.

I am still shocked at the American concept of 'Primary elections'. Everywhere else in the world, party candidates are selected by the party, and the voters just pick which party to support; or they can vote for an independent who puts himself forward as an effective 'party of one'.

Good point. But if they do court you to be a voting member of a party, and then devalue your vote, and override it, that is pretty anti-democratic for a party that calls itself the "Democratic Party".

Personally I don't like the very basic idea of political parties and party whips, nor the first past the post system that fosters a 2 party system. It takes voting power out of the hands of the public and makes politicians beholden to the party rather than to their constituents. And you wind up with the option of voting against that party, with only one other party to realistically vote for. It becomes an all or nothing choice of the lesser of two evils. I think we should be able to vote for the ideas and people who we truly support, and that our votes for them should have some sort of impact.

 

[ksen]

Well, shit. Now that you've put the idea in my head, any type of candidate selection process which doesn't involve a dance-off just seems lame to me.

Way to ruin the election, dude. I mean ... even more than the current crop of candidates being the ones who are running had already ruined it, of course.

The Russians used to pick their rulers that way; and this pre-revolutionary tradition lives on in the west as the TV show 'Dancing with the Tsars'. I saw an episode once; Peter and Catherine were great; but Ivan was terrible.

out . . . get out