'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[swampdragon]

this is a good read - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...candidacy.html

[Hornsby]

I am not arguing the result, I am arguing the process and from where I sit, the process seemed a lot fairer to Sen Clinton in 2008 than it does to Sen Sanders in 2016. She was all about debates in 2008 and the DNC obliged--seemed like there was one every other day. Now? Dec 23, Friday nights, no California debate---those things I find troubling regardless if it's my belief that it wouldn't have changed the outcome.
There are few politicians I respect more than Tulsi Gabbard, one of the brighter future stars in the Democratic Party. When she resigns from the DNC and self inflicts deep political wounds because she thinks the process is unfair, I take notice.

You're right, there were 22 debates in 2008, there have been 8 this season for the Democrats. Now, the fundamental question is this: Why should they debate any more when their positions are so well defined? At this point, you either support HRC, or you support Bernie, and no amount of debates are going to change that. Now it would amount to free air time for Sanders to attack HRC, something which does the party no good at all. There are hundreds of sites out there detailing the pros and cons of both candidates...if someone doesn't know by now where the two stand, frankly, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

Clinton unabashedly supported Obama in 2008 once the writing was on the wall...the writing has been on the wall for weeks now for Sanders, when is he going to throw his support to HRC?

[swampdragon]

Clinton unabashedly supported Obama in 2008 once the writing was on the wall...the writing has been on the wall for weeks now for Sanders, when is he going to throw his support to HRC?

I wish we knew this

[Fresno Bob]

I've felt those same doubts. Bernie is polling at 38% in CA so in what fantasyland is he going to win 60%?

Bernie is going to win California, I have the feeling that those are landline telephone polls. I know that the Sanders machine came by to every person registered Green in my neighborhood to make sure they knew that they needed to shift to Democrat 3 weeks ago to vote for Bernie in the primary....

[Fresno Bob]

And then they could subvert the process into a Sanders win! Sure, it may not be fair but who cares about fair if it's our guy benefiting!




Having read Robert Reich a bunch recently, he outlines a scenario in which Sanders could still be the nominee. I hope he's right, as I'd much prefer to vote for Sanders in the general (and will still vote for him here in six days, most likely). I still think it's a snowball's chance in hell, though.

I'd wish I could vote for Robert Reich

[onejayhawk]

You're right, there were 22 debates in 2008, there have been 8 this season for the Democrats. Now, the fundamental question is this: Why should they debate any more when their positions are so well defined? At this point, you either support HRC, or you support Bernie, and no amount of debates are going to change that. Now it would amount to free air time for Sanders to attack HRC, something which does the party no good at all. There are hundreds of sites out there detailing the pros and cons of both candidates...if someone doesn't know by now where the two stand, frankly, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

Clinton unabashedly supported Obama in 2008 once the writing was on the wall...the writing has been on the wall for weeks now for Sanders, when is he going to throw his support to HRC?

Debates was a big issue for Sanders. Clinton was likely responsible for the few number and the bizarre hours. Also, in 2008 she got a nice juicy bone. Sanders is getting squat.

J

[Hornsby]

Good article on the math problems the Sanders campaign has, and why super-delegates might actually be helping him...

Sanders has complained regularly about the “absurd” system used in the Democratic Party presidential nomination process — a combination of 4,051 delegates elected through primaries and caucuses and then 714 “superdelegates,” who are elected officials, former elected officials and other eminence grises of the Democratic Party who can back whomever they want.

Hillary Clinton is on track to win a majority of the pledged delegates, almost certainly by June 7. But because superdelegates make up 15 percent of the total delegate pool, neither Clinton nor Sanders can obtain the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination without the support of superdelegates.

But the irony is that without the superdelegate system in place, Sanders likely would be toast on June 7, when six states essentially complete the primary process, including California with its 475 delegates. (There is also a vote on June 14 in D.C. to award 20 delegates.) So Sanders is complaining about a system that is actually keeping hope alive for his supporters, on the theory that superdelegates can change their vote any time before the convention starts in late July. But it’s a false hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/02/bernie-sanderss-factually-incorrect-delegate-math/

[onejayhawk]

UVa has an article out on California. Sanders might win, but it should be close.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/model-points-to-close-california-result-between-clinton-and-sanders/

J

[In the Corn]

So I'm watching Clinton on ABC this morning and she makes the statement that each Constitutional Amendment is allowed to be regulated. This is in regard to the 2nd Amendment.

So with that in mind, couldn't Republicans justify, with Clinton's words, the need to regulate people showing ID to vote?

Seems like she's opening a can of worms.

[Hornsby]

AP says that Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination, with her victories in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, added with some supers declaring their allegiance to her..

We'll see how this plays out with the Sanders camp.

[Lucky]

AP says that Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination, with her victories in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, added with some supers declaring their allegiance to her..

We'll see how this plays out with the Sanders camp.

They recognized that it wasn't Hillary's fault, at least, and placed the blame on the AP and NBC. They specifically said this was contrary to the DNC's policy and repeated requests.

The Clinton campaign is not happy at all with this development.

[Hornsby]

They recognized that it wasn't Hillary's fault, at least, and placed the blame on the AP and NBC. They specifically said this was contrary to the DNC's policy and repeated requests.

The Clinton campaign is not happy at all with this development.

Journalistic tenet...you have the story nailed, you go with the story. AP owes nothing to the DNC or the 2 campaigns.

I'm curious as to whether this is going to tamp down enthusiasm for Sanders in California tomorrow, or have the opposite reaction. I'd guess that's what HRC is a little worried about, and Sanders was already worried that the New Jersey results would have a dampening effect in the turnout on the opposite coast.

[Lucky]

I still voted for Bernie Sanders today.

Good man. Always vote for someone you really believe in.

[chancellor]

Good man. Always vote for someone you really believe in.

Despite our political differences, I agree 100% with Lucky.

And even more importantly, you got out and voted. While in law school and with a young son. Seriously, and again even with our political differences, thanks for taking the time to vote. Given the circumstances, a lot of people would just stay away, complaining they're too busy.

[Fresno Bob]

I'm absolutely stunned that Hilary beat Bernie even in San Francisco. For what it's worth, even in 2nd, Bernie got a couple hundred thousand more votes than Trump