No Chance

“I watch Bernie. He wins, he wins, he keeps winning, winning and winning, and then I see he’s got no chance. They always say he’s got no chance. Why doesn’t he have a chance?” “Because the system is corrupt. And it’s worse on the Republican side.”

Donald Trump, during a rally in Rochester, N.Y.

Comments | 13

  • He comes and goes

    Trump speaks the truth for those few sentences.

    He also said this at another NY rally:

    “We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, “Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.” And I’ll say, “No, it isn’t!”

    We have to keep winning We have to win more! We’re gonna win more. We’re gonna win so much. I love you, Albany! Get out and vote. You will be so happy. I love you. Thank you. Thank you!”

  • truth

    Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say.

  • Leahy is part of the problem

    One of the reasons he might not have a chance is Senator Leahy, who has promised Clinton support as a super delegate rather than support the will of the Vermont voters.

    All of his office’s cries of #DoYourJob to the GOP regarding the SCOTUS nomination process are hypocritical. THEY need to follow the rules and do the right thing, but HE can do as he pleases.

    Lame!

    • Super Delegates are not

      Super Delegates are not obliged to “support of the will” of anyone. Their vote is theirs alone to determine and make. You are right, Leahy CAN do as he pleases, that is the entire point of the Super Delegate vote. It is not tied in any way to the votes of people in this or any other state. It is as personal as the general election vote. You aren’t saying that Leahy has to vote in the General according to how the people in Vermont vote are you? If and when Bernie gets the majority of the delegates and the popular vote the Super Delegates will, as they have historically done, all unite behind him. But in actuality they don’t even have to do that, but they do. Neither Leahy nor any other state figure who has a super delegate vote in Vermont are obliged to vote for any particular candidate. It may seem unfair but it’s the system, has existed since the mid-80s or so. Again I ask, would you demand that State officials vote for whoever the majority of the people in each state vote for in the General Election. Of course not, and the same principle applies here.

      The GOP meanwhile cannot do as they please, their job is to either okay or not okay the nominee.

      • Also there are a lot of

        Also there are a lot of reasons that carry a lot more weight that might be impeding the possibility of Sanders nomination. Leahy’s one super delegate vote is really not one of them.

      • Muck

        I’m saying he’s hypocritical calling for others to “do their job” when he’s promising a super delegate vote to someone who lost the state by a resounding margin. If they need to “do their job” then he should, too, right?

        Put another way, he should let other representatives do as they want and not chastise them if he wants to do as he pleases and not be chastised for it.

        Personally, I’d like to be free of super delegates again. It’s a recent invention and just adds a layer of muck.

        • The point is he is not being

          The point is he is not being hypocritical. He has every right to chastise others to “do their job.” The reality of the Super Delegate vote is that he can do as he pleases, he is not obliged to vote for anyone just because the voters in the state support him whether resoundingly or by a narrow margin.

          You may not like it but that doesn’t mean it’s hypocritical. It is not his “job” to vote for Bernie or Hillary for that matter because of how they fared in the state. It is his job to vote for the person he thinks will be the better candidate and apparently he thinks it will be Hillary. Again, you may not like that but in reality he is doing exactly what his ” job” is as far as the super delegate vote
          .

          • Definition and Explanation

            In some presidential elections, superdelegates can play a major role in determining the Democratic nominee. Unlike delegates, superdelegates are not bound to represent the popular vote of a region at the Democratic National Convention; they are free to support any candidate for the nomination. The Republican Party does not have superdelegates.

            Superdelegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, superdelegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegate is a term that arose in the 1970s.

  • What are political parties anyway?

    Let’s not forget that political parties do not appear anywhere in our constitution. Political parties are independent creations – associations that represent people, policies, special interests and views – but they are not required to operate according to principals such as “one person, one vote.” Super delegates are kind of like the “parents” in a family. The kids can say they want to go to Disneyland but the parents can go ahead and take them hiking in the Rockies. Face it, it’s a better decision.

    If you do not like how a political party works then you can join it and change it from within. Or, you can create another party – or join a different one.

    The primaries and caucuses are utterly different than a general election which is constitutionally based. These primaries are crazy and byzantine processes that are designed by party insiders to work for their interests. The democratic party is what it is. But it is not a prairie progressive grassroots organization created to determine the actual interests of the American people.

    • Well put. It's amazing how

      Well put. It’s amazing how many people this election cycle are assuming that the primaries are Constitutionally protected under the one vote principle.

      I’m rather astounded that with access to instant information with the internet and all, few take the time to use it that way and find about things that are puzzling to them. Actually the primaries are now much closer to one person, one vote than historically. Before the 1960s it truly was just party bosses and officials picking the candidate in most states.

      All this complaining about the process by candidates makes me wonder if even the candidates in those cases are aware of the process or history of the primary process. I’d like to think life-long politicians have some historical knowledge of our democracy but I’m beginning to doubt it in some cases. And then they cry anti-Democratic, we wuzz robbed! Oh my.

      • Parties

        Good comments. I’m glad to see the number of postings clarifying that super delegates, Leahy, & indeed the entire party system have only tangential connection to the voters in general. I, tho a kid at the time, found it equally satisfying to have the parties do the choosing & then dump a couple of candidates on our plates. Good point by ADavis that parties are not specified in the Constitution. They are clubs, like Rotary or Elks, which just, weirdly, happen to be involved in choosing candidates. Be better to get rid of the endless primaries, which, as we are all witnessing, simply chew up money and stimulate idiocy. Tho not perfect, those systems where the head of the ruling party notices things are either going well or badly and calls for an election in a few weeks seem to work as well as our now-years-long primary & election system. The smoke-filled rooms gave us some duds, but also some dudes, and the primaries have brought us, well, you know….

  • Superdelegate Predators

    Superdelegates, do you mean Clinton cronies? How is it possible that a group of Clinton supporters sway the election? They are not representative of the democratic process, they are a symbol of stopping democracy in action, they are a force of institutionalized inertia against change. The Superdelegates are the antithesis of change, they are the force of the status quo, they represent the Clintons. Good luck with that group of non-changers. All voters will remember the superdelegates as the group that destroyed Clinton and her hopes.

    • Roots of American corruption

      I agree with your sentiment, to a degree. However, I thought that the superdelegates syndrome was a two-party condition. As Ruth Marcus wrote in her 2008 book, Looking Beyond Tsunami Tuesday, “Although the term superdelegate was originally coined and created to describe a type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties, even though it is not an official term used by either party.”

      In American politics superdelegates and lobbyists are some of the roots of American corruption.

Leave a Reply