Would having Mrs Warren on the ticket in 2020 doom the Dems?

@easterniowegin

With proportional delegate allocation, it will be difficult for ANYONE to separate themselves from the pack in a large field.

@beckyromero so it will come down to closed-door negotiations with super-delegates. Thats how hillary got it last time, isnt it?

@easterniowegin

Actually, Hillary won the popular vote when you count up all the primaries and caucuses in [i]both[/i] 2008 and 2016.

Her margins of victory would be even greater if you only include the votes of [b]registered Democrats[/b].

It is [b]OUR[/b] party, after all.

The ole smoke filled room 😀 @easterniowegin

@beckyromero i find it quite interesting how some states choose to do their primaries and delegates. Non-party voters. Winner takes all vs proportional delegates. Even being from Iowa, i dont understand why all primaries arent completed on the same day. It just feels like too much manipulation can occur otherwise.

@beckyromero btw, is the non-party vote comment implying a voter verification of some kind? 🤔

So President got the 2008 nomination HOW in your opinion? @beckyromero

Hillary has the superdelegates. Look for Hillary by hook or crook 2020.

Fortunately that ship has sailed. Wave goodbye to Mrs Clinton. Ding dong that witch is dead. @MasterLee

@jackjjackson we hope

@jackjjackson [quote]So [Obama] got the 2008 nomination HOW in your opinion?[/quote]

With the overwhelming support of NON-Democrats who were allowed to vote in SOME states' primaries, allowing him to edge Hillary in delegates by a slim margin.

And let's not discount John Edwards' affair.

If the media covers it in December 2007, Edwards drops out and Hillary wins Iowa, then New Hampshire and Obama is soon considered as nothing more than a possible 2016 candidate (or potential VP pick).

@easterniowegin [quote] i find it quite interesting how some states choose to do their primaries and delegates. ...[/quote]

Oh, it's even worse than you think.

Did you know that the Democrats reward states which voted for the Democrat in the previous election more delegates at the expense of states which didn't?

This means that a state like California or New York gets even more delegates than they would if it were strictly done proportional to their electoral votes than say Florida and Ohio.

Lotta ifs there. The biggest if is what if Mrs Clinton had ever been and honest and truthful person ........ @beckyromero

I hope they keep playing that way. Sounds eminently sensible to me 👀 @beckyromero

@easterniowegin [quote]btw, is the non-party vote comment implying a voter verification of some kind?[/quote]

Yes.

In closed-primary states (New York and Pennsylvania, for example) only the registered voters who such specified a party preference can vote in that party's primary.

In open-primaries states (California and Illinois, for example, a person not registered with a given party can vote in that party's primary.

State parties can generally restrict who can vote in their state's primaries.

Poll workers can see a voter's registration and party status so as to be able to give them the correct ballot (or direct them to the appropriate machine) to vote with.

All that being said which system do you favor? One system prevents registered independents from voting in primaries. @beckyromero

@beckyromero well i cant say that it surprises me the way that dems want to change the way that a process operates, simply to get the outcome that they want at a point in time.
Constantly reacting emotionally to situations causes "i told you so" moments to be plentiful. Why do you think they are pushing so hard for abolishing the electoral college? When it works for them, they like the idea, but they dont think long-term and always end up burning themselves on the fire that they, themselves, have lit.

@easterniowegin [quote]Why do you think they are pushing so hard for abolishing the electoral college?[/quote]

Because they are stupid, of course.

Aside from it likely being unconstitutional, they mistakingly believe a popular vote will more likely elect a Democrat.

MORE likely it will elect a reactionary even WORSE than Trump.

Just because Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in an election decided by the electoral vote, does not mean they would win the popular vote in an election decided by the popular vote.

If a baseball game was won by the team that scored the most runs but lost by the team that had the most hits, it does not necessarily mean that the losing team will have the most hits the following day with the rules of victory changed.

[@ We agree on that one.

@beckyromero wow, someone with common sense. A nice change!!

@jackjjackson [quote]One system prevents registered independents from voting in primaries.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Some state parties allow them do so if they have an open primary.

Why don’t the Dems do away with caucuses and primaries and have all superdelegates that are smarter than the public? @beckyromero @easterniowegin

@jackjjackson

I'd like to see all closed primaries.

I think the electoral college was an example of the genius of the founders. @beckyromero

Agreed. Between you and me I’ve changed my registration a couple of times to vote against Mrs Clinton in primaries. @beckyromero