Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

Oh no, I'm not claiming that's going to happen, only that if it's close, and a contested election (which it will be) every delegate one way or the other will count, and it's big that they tied in delegates.

Back to the farce in Nevada:

 

What an archaic method of voting.

It's like a sports arena!

 

Does the winner of California get all the delegates, or is it split ?

Hillary only needs 90 more to win. If she can split California, she wins. But I don't know if it's an all or nothing state.

 

This is how it works on the Republican side. I can't find info on the Dem side, but probably similar. (probably can't find info because the more informed you are, the more likely you are to know how much the Dems have been cheating).

"
Others use a hybrid system, going by a complex set of rules that are neither winner-take-all nor proportional. They are: California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Connecticut.

Out of the “hybrids,” California is the most significant, bringing with it a massive haul of 172 delegates.

California's system is essentially winner-take-all, but with a twist. The delegates are split between congressional delegates and state-wide delegates, with three delegates assigned to Republican National Committee officials. The top candidate state-wide picks up 10 delegates, while the top candidates in each district pick up three votes per district. Indiana and Wisconsin follow a similar method of distributing their delegates."

 

^^^ that's confusing.

 

Good info. Thanks. I don't see how Hillary doesn't win the Dem Nomination if she's can split California. She only needs 90.

 

It's a foregone conclusion in my opinion that she wins. The Dems have been cheating to get her that nomination all along. Sanders, even though I'm not a huge fan, is a threat to their status quo. What that tells me is the Dems are worried he's for real about getting private money out of politics. They're afraid of losing the millions and billions private companies give to the US in order to influence politics to their liking.

 

I don't think that's true. Last time I heard it was almost a foregone conclusion that it would be a vote at the convention.

 

This s*** is depressing man. This is the first time I've followed politics, actively looking to vote. We really don't have a say, they will put whoever they want in charge, whoever will play ball, our votes don't seem to matter. How long have the people been out of control of what's really going on in government? Following WW2? Much sooner? Were we really ever?

 

It's gotten worse and worse over time. The last two decades or so I'd say it has peaked. Once the media and politicians fell into bed, it became easy to influence the American people how they wanted to. Without the internet tv shows were able to frame politics as they see fit. ABC, NBC, CNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. they're owned by certain companies that will support certain politicians and thus give us that slant. I'd say 90% of news outlets are heavily democratic influenced. It's why you see anti-Trump stuff every day, but who the f*** is talking about the Dems circumventing the will of their constituents? Not many. The age of information is helping to stop that which is why we SEE things now. It's so much harder to lie and cheat the people because everyone is filming everything constantly and we can get the truth if we want it badly enough.

 

"Debunking Hillary’s Specious “Winning the Popular Vote” Claim
05/16/2016 03:21 pm ET | Updated 1 day ago


The claim that Hillary is winning the popular vote is one of the most deceptive, specious claims the Hillary Clinton campaign and her surrogates are making. The mainstream media is echoing and giving a total pass on this egregiously dishonest claim.
This is very important for several reasons.

1- Superdelegates are arguing that they are, by supporting Hillary, representing the majority of voters. The truth is that this not true.

2- The mainstream media repeat the “Hillary is winning the popular vote” mantra, or allow Hillary and her surrogates to make the specious claim many many times every day.

Actually, the claim is an affront to the truth, based on the numbers.

The truth is that caucus states don’t have a popular vote. That doesn’t make their vote less important. It just changes how the people of that state choose to make the decision on who to select in the primary.

Most people making claims about Hillary’s popular vote advantage talk about her having around a three million vote lead. I went to the2016 Democratic Popular Vote page on RealClearPolitics. The page, not including West Virginia, shows Hillary with a 3,135,834 lead.

Then I took a list of the caucus states that Bernie has won, and he’s won almost all of them.

I dug up 2015 census data on the populations of those states and then pulled from Real Clear Politics, the total votes and the winning spread for Sanders in the caucus states. The numbers are below. First observation— for states totaling roughly 35 million people, some which Bernie won by 70%, he is given a total spread advantage of 160,000 votes. That’s outrageous.

Caucus states:

2015 populations according to wikipedia



Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population.

The same goes for Maine, where Bernie had a 29% spread and Alaska where he won over 81% of the vote. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In Wyoming, Bernie is given 32 votes, not 32,000. He is given 32 votes.

It’s ridiculous. But it’s not ridiculous that Clinton claims she has a three million popular vote lead. It’s an intentional, obscenely misleading, dishonest claim.

When a super delegate claims he or she is representing the will of the majority, basing it on the three million lead popular vote, it’s based on a lie. Challenge that superdelegate.

When a journalist on a news network allows Hillary Clinton, her campaign manager or any of her many surrogates, employed by the networks or independent, to matter-of-factly state that Hillary has a popular vote lead, without challenging that claim, they are engaging in unethical, journalistic malpractice, or, framed another way, they are promoting the Hillary Clinton campaign.

If you observe the MSM engaging in this practice, call them on it. Tweet or share on Facebook the name of the “journalist” who gave the “pass.” Include the network’s twitter address and the journalist’s twitter @address. Make a stink about this.

This is a lie that should not be accepted, tolerated or allowed to persist."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/debunking-hillarys-specio_b_9972312.html

 

Trump was asked today if he's considered Sanders as a possible VP. He replied, "that's a great question, but too early to answer."

If those 2 ran together, I don't care who Hillary picked for VP, she's get destroyed.

 

This country...

 

That's a network comedy show, not a presidency