Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked to explain how Hillary lost NH primary by 22% but came away with same number of delegates

[rangerrebew]

February 12, 2016
Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked to explain how Hillary lost NH primary by 22% but came away with same number of delegates
By Thomas Lifson

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has had her thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton, like the rest of the party establishment. When Hillary thought she was a shoe-in, they limited the number of debates and scheduled them in time slots where no one was watching. Now that Sanders is giving her a hard run, miraculously, new debates have been scheduled for prime time.

Then, there is the Democratic Party’s use of superdelegates, party office holders and insiders, designed specifically to keep top-down control of the nomination process, so that even a 22 point landslide in New Hampshire for Sanders yielded the same number of delegates as Hillary got.

Prior to the Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee last night, CNN’s Jake Tapper had the audacity to ask the DNC chair about this. The expression on Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s face is priceless when CNN’s Jake Tapper asks her to explain to “voters new to the process” who might feel “this is all rigged” because of the superdelegates.

 

Tre Goins-Phillips of the Blaze summarizes the evasive, yet unintentionally revealing answer:

    The DNC chairwoman explained to Tapper that the unpledged delegates, or the superdelegates, are a completely separate category from the pledged delegates, which Clinton and Sanders were competing for in the Granite State.

So far, so good. But then:

    “Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Shultz said, adding that the Democratic Party “highlights inclusiveness and diversity at our convention” and wants to give activists “every opportunity” to participate, which she says it what the superdelegates are for.

Wait a minute! If grassroots activists turn out for a candidate they way they did for Sanders, the superdelegates nullify the resulting margin of victory. I guess by saying the “don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” DWS means they don’t even have to go to the voters to get their way.

Thanks for explaining. This is what happens in a battle of wits with an unarmed party.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/debbie_wasserman_schultz_asked_to_explain_how_hillary_lost_nh_primary_by_22_but_came_away_with_same_number_of_delegates_.html#ixzz3zxhLLEVL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Wingnut]

Mercifully that women is free of the ravages of intelligence.

[sneakypete]

" “Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Shultz said"

Everytime I read or hear that mindless puppet's "thoughts",it occurs to me she was given her position to break the old stereotype that all Jews are smart.

[HAPPY2BME]

Mercifully that women is free of the ravages of intelligence.

====================================

As do other professional elitist career politicians now controlling the government, Schultz knows exactly what she is doing.

Her (and those in higher office like her) are banking on the fact that it is the lethargic, lazy, progressive American voter who will keep checking the same boxes for them.

 

[flowers]

====================================

As do other professional elitist career politicians now controlling the government, Schultz knows exactly what she is doing.

Her (and those in higher office like her) are banking on the fact that it is the lethargic, lazy, progressive American voter who will keep checking the same boxes for them.

spot on post!