You could have just stopped here and said "so what?" You have heard that the undemocratic nature of party bosses picking the candidate will not sit well with people but you don't care. Got it. There is nothing else to be said.
I didn't stop right there because the plain explanation of how party bosses don't pick the candidate seemed like it needed to be pointed out.
But you go right on ignoring it and pretend it's all secret chamber meetings while everyone else watches what happens in plain sight.
Garbage. The so-called moderates are continually working against his agenda. Becoming an actual Democrat wouldn't change anything, because he is not beholden to money.
As long as you call anyone who isn't behind Bernie Sanders, or specifically aiming for your 4 priorities exactly as worded a moderate, your
so-called modifier is definitely correct.
Let's just say Bernie Sanders is beholden to money and Democrats are not. I don't even need to prove anything because that's obviously never been a requirement for that claim. Just yell it over and over and evidently that's all there is to it.
Nice spin, but that logic is more delusion. They are not normal for the reason you cited - that they don't represent any proportional share of the population of a state/territory. Elected officials in the state can easily take the place of those who are apportioned by the electoral vote.
I guess you missed where the 10% of delegates in California and Florida for example, couldn't possibly be enough to offset anything but a slightly even allotment of the pledged.
Because WV just happened to have an unusually high proportion living in the state. They aren't supposed to be a proportional share of a state. Try to talk half of the unpledged delegates in WV to move somewhere else if it makes you feel better.
The spin is 100% on YOU.
Do you work for a Democratic consulting company? Because the spin is just amazing. Elected officials can participate as normal delegates, in proportion. No one is arguing to keep them out of it. And basic math tells you that any threshold higher than 50% is a supermajority. What the hell is that, trying to spin basic math?
Spin is entirely what YOU are doing. You refuse to look at any documented details and go back to crying
rigged, sounding too obtuse to warrant recognition.
We're not talking basic math. We're talking politics. Bare minimum for a supermajority is sometimes 3/5; often it is 2/3.
If we were talking basic math, you're still wrong. Any threshold higher than 50% is a simple majority. 50% is a tie.
There is no way possible to pretend any delegate that isn't pledged is even a delegate at all if there were no offset of the totals when theirs is included. AGAIN, there were only 714 unpledged delegates out of 4,765 total. Their votes are mixed, for whomever they choose, and getting well over half without them practically guarantees a win.
You don't have to be part of a partisan consulting team to reject baseless complaints.
WV showed how undemocratic the process is. He won ALL 55 counties and still had fewer delegates in the end. His share should have reflected his win, not with her having more in the end.
From WV, he had 18 delegates to her 11. His share reflected his win.
Your addition of delegates who were perfectly able to vote for whomever they wished, including changing their minds at the convention is dishonest. They hadn't even voted yet.
I would have just said disingenuous, but you've had it explained and are still free to verify it on your own. Now you're just being dishonest.
Had he won over half of the pledged delegates, there's hardly any chance in the world all the unpledged from WV would have supported HRC.
(Added irony here - HRC had 2205 of all pledged delegates. BS had 1486. Throwing away all unpledged would have had the same ending.)
I will blame the voters. But now when the voters are moving left, the leadership is trying to hold them back because of money.
Psychotic conspiracy rambling by itself is what it is.
Otherwise, citation needed. Third way doesn't count. It's a political think tank, not party leadership. Most Democrats ignore them. I don't think any differently of them than you do.
I'm not going to bother responding to all the rest. We'll disagree on some and agree on others. The healthcare problem I mostly agree with you on.
I'm also convinced that high out of pocket expense would have taken center stage had Republicans not taken the House in 2010. I'm not confident it will get attention yet, with GOP still holding the Senate.