Hillary Clinton Is Now the Presumptive Democratic Nominee

[NCTraveler]

The first Super Tuesday wasn’t quite as super as Hillary Clinton hoped, but the sequel couldn’t have turned out much better for the former secretary of state. Clinton won at least four the night’s five contests—notching big wins in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, and a smaller one in Illinois. (The only possible blemish on an otherwise perfect night for her was Missouri, where the race remained too close to call with more than 97 percent of precincts reporting.) Hillary came into the night as the dinged-up cautious favorite; she’ll leave it as the presumptive nominee.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/hillary_clinton_wins_ohio_florida_north_carolina_is_now_the_presumptive.html

[Surya Gayatri]

1. K & R enthusiastically.

[stonecutter357]

2. K&R!

[madaboutharry]

3. The article goes on to say

that she only needs to win another third of the outstanding delegates. Bernie obviously understands simple arthimatic and knows that he is not going to be the nominee.

Remaining in the race at this point makes it clear that Bernie is not a democrat, does not care about what is good for the democratic party, and simply used the party for purposes of running for president. I use to like Bernie a lot. For years I would always be interested in what he had to say. It was always interesting to see him on tv or listen to him when he would talk with Thom Hartmann.

[eomer]

13. The article goes on to say, effectively,

that even if Bernie wins a clear majority of pledged delegates, the supers will overturn the votes of the people and give the nomination to the second-place candidate.

Clearly the author, by taking such a stance, is not a democrat. A democrat would want the nominee to be chosen by the votes of the citizens, one person one vote.

[Serial Mom]

36. But what about 2008

Obama received more delegate votes and HRC more citizen votes

[eomer]

43. Not true, actually.

Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

[NobodyHere]

99. Obama took himself off the ballot

So Hillary did get more votes.

[eomer]

106. Hillary got more votes in the states where she was the only one on the ballot.

In all the other states where both she and Obama were on the ballot, Obama got more votes.

The Michigan story is a complicated mess:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/how-obama-ended-up-on-and_n_103132.html

It is quite misleading to just throw out a statement that Clinton won the most popular votes and try to gain leverage from it without mentioning the disputed nature of that claim.

[Adrahil]

50. The fact is we don;t actually HAVE one man, one vote.

For a variety of reason, some states get more delegate per capita, than others. Blue state Dems' votes count more than mine. There are party reasons why that is, and frankly, right now that benefits Bernie.

The Supers are the cream on that really. I don't expect them to really swing the vote. But even if just the supers from the states she won support her, it's a steep climb for Bernie.

[eomer]

83. Agreed, it is a steep climb.

But let's be clear about what the climb really is. Bernie doesn't need two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates - he needs about 57% of them. In other words, he needs to get in the second half the same percentage that Hillary got in the first half.

[SCantiGOP]

54. Eomer:

You declare the author is not a Democrat because he/she explained how the current rules work?
I realize you aren't happy with the outcome but you need to be reasonable. Besides, it is obvious that Clinton will have a substantial victory with just elected delegates; the superdelegates will make that a landslide victory.
Reality sucks sometimes, huh?

[eomer]

84. No, I said the author is not a democrat with a small "d".

In other words, the author is not supportive of a democratic process for deciding the nominee.

And Hillary may or may not have a substantial victory of just elected delegates. What Bernie has to do to avoid that is to do as well in the second half of the primaries as Hillary did in the first half.

[SCantiGOP]

85. The author was writing a factual story

Not an opinion piece.

[eomer]

86. The author states as fact something that isn't determined yet and that many of us advocate against.

He says:

Add it all up and Clinton now needs to win only about a third of the outstanding delegates to secure the majority she’ll ultimately need at this summer’s convention—an incredibly low bar for any candidate, let alone one with Clinton’s built-in advantages.

Many of us, me included, advocate that if Hillary loses the race to win the most pledged delegates (as would be the case in the situation described in that excerpt) then barring some extraordinary event the super delegates should respect the result of the primary process and not overturn it. The author is acting as if the super delegates overturning the winner of the primary in such a case is a done deal when in fact it is not known what the supers would do.

[SCantiGOP]

92. My last comment

One: you are hijacking a thread that was dealing with an article about the candidate you obviously do not support.
Two, The author was not analyzing the fairness or how democratic the current system is, but was rather making a factual statement.

Suggest you find a thread where your concerns will be shared and discussed.

[eomer]

94. Thanks, but no.

My comments have all been related to the central point of the article. If they aren't something you're interested in discussing then that's your call, you're free to go discuss something else.

[lovemydog]

100. I respectfully disagree.

For example, if something happened to Hillary Clinton tomorrow (and I don't wish for it) Sanders could win 2/3 of the remaining delegates.

Politics in this country can appear very slow but also things can change with lightning speed.

So it seems relevant on this thread to discuss what is a presumptive nominee and what that means.

[yellowcanine]

67. I don't see that in the article. Please paste in the relevant paragraph.

It is not fair to trash the author for taking a stance which he really hasn't taken.

[eomer]

82. Here

Add it all up and Clinton now needs to win only about a third of the outstanding delegates to secure the majority she’ll ultimately need at this summer’s convention—an incredibly low bar for any candidate, let alone one with Clinton’s built-in advantages.

So the author says that Clinton only needs to win a third of the outstanding delegates. If that happens then Bernie will have won a clear majority of the delegates that are allocated by way of the votes of citizens.

What I say is that Hillary needs to win about 43% of the outstanding pledged delegates in order to have a majority of them. Bernie for his part needs to win about 57% of them. That is the democratic way of deciding the nominee.

[yellowcanine]

88. Author gets the numbers wrong a bit. But it doesn't lead to your conclusion.

And the point is, given the map and Clinton's momentum, Bernie is extremely unlikely to win 57% of the remaining delegates. I am not a big fan of Clinton. But neither am I willing to just ignore the math. To do what you are suggesting, Bernie would pretty much have to win nearly everything from now on by significant margins. Getting big wins in a few states like Arizona, Washington and Idaho is not going to cut it. Do you really think he is going to thump Clinton in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, and California, for example? It would take a big shift in momentum for him to even come close in all of these states, let alone win big. And by thumping I mean winning by 20 points or so. That is the only way he gets 57% of the remaining delegates. Winning or losing by a couple of points in these delegate rich states gets him close to 50% of the remaining delegates. Throw in a couple of percentage points for big wins in places like Arizona and Idaho and he still falls short. And that assumes that he pretty much runs the table of all the states remaining. It is not going to happen. I don't think Bernie should drop out. But neither do I think he has close to a realistic chance of winning the majority of the elected delegates.



















.

[eomer]

89. No, the author doesn't get the numbers wrong. He's just counting super delegates.

He explains in the article that that is what he is doing.

Agreed about all the rest. It's just math - if Bernie gets less than 57% in any state then he has to get more than 57% somewhere else. He needs the weighted average of his results to be 57%, where the weighting factor is the number of pledged delegates for the state.

[Bad Dog]

70. When has America ever advocated that?

The primaries are a long drawn out car crash based on ancestor worship. You could have one member one vote yonks ago. This Clinton/Sanders spat was going on before Corbyn even announced his candidacy. He's been six months in the job and it's still going on.

[Billsmile]

21. Party Principals

You wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt because of your Democratic party devotion?

[madaboutharry]

30. That was a different party.

Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt ran in a republican party that no longer exists.

[morningfog]

37. That's bullshit. Even if there is only a marginal chance

And if it is nearly impossible, he has every right to stay in.

There is value in staying beyond winning, too. Just relax and let it continue.

[anothergreenbus]

57. Hillary won the backward areas of the country which were

designed by the DNC to have the most visible impact upfront in the primary. Now the states with larger Democratic electorates get to weigh in. We also do not know what else will come out on the Libya scandal and the email debacle. The last thing Bernie supporters should do is give in the the forces of corruption and war in the Democratic Party. Regardless of what happens in the next Blue State primaries, Progressives HAVE TO TAKE THIS FIGHT INTO THE CONVENTION. The Party has to be shown that the base is not to be taken for granted any longer. The Party must change or lose its base.

[redstateblues]

65. Backward states like OH, MA, FL, IL?

[MADem]

74. LOL--we "backward" types in Boston can barely git in all our huntin' and trappin' and

ice fishin'...owing to all these dog-gone colleges and universities hereabouts! You can't swing a dead squirrel without hittin' one of 'em!

[lovemydog]

103. LOL.

& ah still ain't evin had my dang vote yet dagnabbit!

[lovemydog]

95. If that's your opinion I disagree and here's why:

The decision should be made by Sanders. I'm sure he will consult with his family and friends and advisors and campaign and supporters.

California and other states haven't voted in the democratic primary yet. All voters should be heard.

Many Sanders supporters have expressed that they're voting for the issues, not for one individual person. That should be respected. They will have more leverage at the convention if they keep on voting and keep on pushing for their issues.

As Hillary Clinton said eight years ago, something could happen to the presumptive nominee. If that is the case, the one in second place has a strong chance at obtaining the nomination. It may be a lot easier to accomplish if that person's campaign is still operational.

The substantive issues emphasized by the Sanders campaign matter to a great deal of Americans.

[Firebrand Gary]

4. K&R

[jfern]

5. No she is not

[crim son]

6. Then I do hope the polls I've seen are dead wrong

since they indicate she hasn't got the support to win against Drumpf. A lot of Bernie supporters are going to have to hold their noses and do the right thing.

[Blue_Adept]

28. We've seen a lot of wrong polls

Hell, Michigan was the biggest wrong poll in primary polling history.

We've already placed minimal faith in polling when it comes to the primary, the same will hold true with the GE

Plus it's important to remember that the reality is - all voting is truly local. While presidential gets people out, people get in there in a big way because of local initiatives and questions on the ballot.

[Persondem]

39. Not sure what polls you are looking at ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[NCTraveler]

72. Link to the polls you see? Nt

[Vinca]

7. After listening to the talking heads, I think she's also the presumptive Republican nominee.

The GOP is rapidly splitting and she's going to win the general thanks to their votes. I thought they would stand behind Drumpf, but it appears saner heads are prevailing.

[shadowandblossom]

48. It looks that way now but

they might sing a different tune as time goes on, or it may wind up being a brokered convention so we don't even really know who we'll face.

[Vinca]

97. If they take it away from Trump, that will cause a split.

His loony supporters will write his name in if they have to. Trump has transcended politics to being a cult.

[shadowandblossom]

105. I hear you. I think he will probably be the nominee anyway.

Still, things are so weird over there I just have no idea how things might twist and turn and end up. Guess we'll see.

[longship]

8. First she has to get the requisite delegates.

Then, and only then, will she become the "presumptive nominee".

One does not get to make this shit up. There are rules to the game and there are a whole lot of people who have yet to vote.

So stop ringing those cockamamie "presumptive nominee" bells. It is disgusting.

[beachbum bob]

10. the math is not there for sanders to gain the dlegate lead with what hillary has amassed now

it still is about the math

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

PLEDGED delegates:
clinton 1,094 sanders 774

sanders would have win at least 60% of the reamining pledged delegates...no way for that to happen with Hillary support in New York, Pennsylvania, California....


here popular vote lead is 50% more than sanders....superdelegates won't budge with these numbers and factor those in right now

total delegates including super delegates
Hillary: 1,561 Sanders: 800

only need 2,383 to win nomination....


ITS THE MATH

[longship]

11. Let's see what Hillary Clinton says about that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017339191

Sorry.
Arrogance and hubris aren't going to work when hypocrisy is evident.

My best to you.

[beachbum bob]

23. sanders won't drop out for obvious reasons but her lead is now

insurmountable...sorry, its still the math and has nothing to do with either arrogance or hubris

its the math

[A Simple Game]

32. Insurmountable? No. Difficult? Yes.

As for arrogance and hubris? Hillary better watch out because arrogance and hubris could be her downfall.

Please don't be upset if Bernie follows Hillary's example of when to drop out of the primaries.

[chwaliszewski]

12. Here, here!

[Betty Karlson]

9. You guys have said so for a year and it's still not truer than it was 12 months ago. eom

[Shadowflash]

14. Hmmmm...

I guess I missed the part where she has earned over half the pledged delegates.

Or did I somehow miss the convention where the nominee is confirmed?

[Raster]

104. You didn't miss the part where Clinton earned over half the pledged delegates....

...BECAUSE SHE HAS NOT. This is far from over. And they know it...

[dchill]

15. The word is "Presumptuous."

[DrDan]

16. everyone seems to agree with that now . . . well, everyone except for a few here

[SidDithers]

17. DU rec...

it's time for DU to go into election season mode.

Sid

[Botany]

26. U R right

It is over.

HRC's lead over Sanders is much bigger then Obama's lead over HRC @ this
point in the race in 2008.

[Broward]

18. There's a parade today on Wall St. Spread the word.

[stonecutter357]

19. K&R!

[RoccoR5955]

20. WRONG!

There is still plenty of time, and plenty of votes to count!
These are not winner take all races, they are proportional.
Take away the super delegates, and you have a much tighter race.
And remember that super delegates vote with their states generally. They have famously changed their vote when it comes to the convention.

[eomer]

22. And what if Bernie does better in the second half than Hillary did in the first?

If Bernie wins the primary by way of the votes of the people, he should be the nominee.

"Presumptive" winner is a tactic whose goal is always to overthrow democracy. "Let the people vote" is the antidote.

[peacebird]

61. Yes, Hillary folk have been telling us she is the nominee since she announced.

Bernie is in this race to the convention and beyond. The map is much more in his favor moving forward.

[johnlucas]

24. Don't be so presumptuous. She's not gonna beat Bernie

She's not gonna beat Bernie.
We will SEE to that.

And if she CHEATS Bernie she won't be the President.
That's a guarantee.

The Third Way is OVER.
We're taking over this joint.
The UNDERGROUND is speaking.
Time for the DEMOCRATIC to take a back seat.

John Lucas

[Godhumor]

29. Yeah no, Democratic is first in the name here for a reason n/t

[johnlucas]

31. Notice how UNDERGROUND supports DEMOCRATIC in the logo. This is a gravity-based world.

We are the foundation.
And a house can't stand without its foundation.
This is a gravity-based world. You rest on our shoulders.

You are NOTHING without us.
Remember that.

Take a backseat while we fix this party for the future.
The UNDERGROUND has the floor.
John Lucas

[CorkySt.Clair]

40. Yeah, I remember my first beer too, kid.

[A Simple Game]

34. And the About page mentions that DU is a liberal discussion board for liberals.

Yet the place is crawling with conservatives... go figure.

[gollygee]

33. When this site was new, to be a Democrat was to be underground

It was never intended to be anything but a site for Democrats. Skinner has posted about this. You can search for his posts. It is not a place for Democrats to take a back seat.

I voted for Bernie but you're being a bit delusional here. Who are the "we" who are going to see to Hillary not beating Bernie, and how are you going to see to it? And how does winning more delegates equal "cheating" to you?

[johnlucas]

38. What the hell is a "Democrat"? What does that mean if there're no principles behind it?

You guys have to get off of that party identification.
The party is a shell for a MOVEMENT.
If you just have the shell with no movement within it, it's EMPTY.

If modern day Democrats might as well be Republicans, then what are we voting for???
When modern day Democrats sell us out just like Republicans, then what are we voting for???

It's just a vehicle. It's just a car to get to a destination.
Without the driver, it's just a hunk of metal.

I say it all over my post history.
DEMOCRATIC are the cheerleading team.
UNDERGROUND are the heart & soul.

When the DEMOCRATIC machine goes off track those UNDERGROUND folks are there to fix it & reorient it so it goes the right way.
But if all we're getting is Rah-Rah from cheerleaders, you're gonna go off the cliff while you cheer.

The Democratic Party MUST. CHANGE. NOW.
Obama was supposed to do it & he didn't.
That's why nobody turned out in 2010 & 2014.
They're tired of this machine 'cause it doesn't work.

You got a guy who will empower the heart & soul back into this organization.
You got a guy who will fuel the machine better than ever before.
And you're ignoring him.
No, not you specifically. I mean Democrats in general.

If you don't pick Bernie this election, this coalition is going to die out & you won't get anything anymore.
Obama already started the realignment & Bernie will be the one to finish it.
With Bernie representing the party, the Republican coalition will disintegrate after we will defeat Donald Trump with ease.
Democrats will have the floor & we can finally roll back all of these destructive policies that have been plaguing us for decades.

But if you pick Hillary, Trump is guaranteed to defeat her & both the Democratic AND Republican Parties will disintegrate.
And it probably won't even matter because he's gonna Hitler this country.
We won't have to worry about Climate Change because we'll be dealing with World War III.
And it will be the war that makes World War IV be fought with sticks & stones in a charred apocalyptic wasteland.

2016 is an election of LIVE or DIE.
2016 is an election of BERNIE or TRUMP.
It's that real.
John Lucas

[MADem]

45. I think you'd do well to review the TOS. nt

[MADem]

55. No, it isn't. It's the guidelines that spell out behavior at this PRIVATE website.

It's the House Rules of this gathering place, in essence, prepared by the people who OWN it.

We are guests in this house--it's not our house.

[johnlucas]

64. When nobody's in the house anymore, it becomes a dilapidated property

If the Democratic Party disintegrates, this website will have no meaning anymore.
And they can own an empty home.

If you got guests, be a good host.
Maybe your guests will volunteer to do some repairs on the roof.
Maybe they'll volunteer to paint the sides.
Maybe they'll volunteer to sweep the porch.
Maybe they'll volunteer the trim the hedges.
Maybe they'll volunteer to rake the yard.
Maybe they'll volunteer to cut the grass.

And maybe they'll bring some snacks over.
Maybe they'll bring more folks to the potluck.
Maybe they'll even help watch your kids.

Luther told you, a house is not a home...when there's no one there...

John Lucas

[MADem]

69. Well, I've been here since the very beginning, and this IS a home to me and many others.

And seeing as we're on iteration number three of this joint, I'd call it anything but dilapidated.

As for the Democratic Party, I think they're leading in a fairly forward way if they can produce the first--and long overdue--female POTUS for America, who is also the most qualified candidate by leaps and bounds. It will be a great and historic day.

[shawn703]

25. Yawn

[billhicks76]

27. Yawn

Again. Really? It's over when over. This smug attitude only hurt her in past.

[Madam Mossfern]

35. ...and will lose her votes

in the GE, IF she becomes the nominee. But I guess some people just can't help burning their bridges behind them.

[blackspade]

41. My state hasn't voted yet, so no, she is not.

[Else You Are Mad]

42. I admit.

As a die hard Sanders supporter, I admit that it is much more likely that Clinton will get the nominee for the GE. And I will proudly vote for her come November if that is the case -- none of this holding my nose BS. My only fear -- and the one thing that every Clinton supporter should realize -- is that Trump has donated a lot of money to her in the past and has been good friends with the Clintons for decades and that gives him a lot of free opposition research & ammunition to attack her. You know he has no qualms with divulging secret info and such. Look at how he mocks Christie -- and he is an ally.

So, if she gets the nomination do not sit back and think that she will just easily beat Trump with little effort. I still think Sanders has the best chance of winning come November, but I will fully support Clinton.

[warrprayer]

44. Nope

"But Sanders campaign aides say they’ll be able to keep Clinton from reaching the 2,383 delegate magic number she’d need to clinch the nomination at the convention and, by being close enough, convince the superdelegates to switch, as some did when they changed from Clinton to Barack Obama in 2008"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847

[MADem]

51. That title has a bit of a "Hail Mary" element to it--and Sanders is no Doug Flutie.

Bernie's longshot victory strategy
After string of defeats, he looks to friendlier turf and a possible plea to superdelegates.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847#ixzz434Qe5TP3

What superdelegate, given this math, is going to stand in the way of history?

[hack89]

53. To keep the money rolling in they have to say that

Because if people stop donating it is truly over. It will take a lot of money to get to the convention.

[anothergreenbus]

66. This is an important point. Thank you!

I just made another donation to the Sanders campaign. Keep up the pressure on the corrupt wing of the once great Democratic Party. We have to go to the convention!

[MADem]

73. That will be the challenge.

The Clinton individual donation money will likely increase, and the Sanders smaller donations will start to fall away. After a while, people start to realize that their efforts are not going to produce the desired result, and in the case of some people, they have no wish to give money to one candidate to have it spent on the other one.

[Herman4747]

87. And what makes you think:

"The Clinton individual donation money will likely increase"?

The Democratic voters will fully understand that if Hillary believes she needs money, she can just give another speech to her beloved Goldman Sachs.

Of course, you won't be able to know what she says in her speech, will you now?

[MADem]

90. I just went and donated--that's a start! LOL!

Apparently you don't understand campaign finance law if you can say something as uninformed as this:

The Democratic voters will fully understand that if Hillary believes she needs money, she can just give another speech to her beloved Goldman Sachs.

The other thing you just don't understand is this--while you are calling Hillary Clinton ugly names abd ascribing nasty motives to her, Bernie Sanders has never stopped calling her his FRIEND. And he should do that--because her help--her deep, financial "Goldman Sachs" help--put him in his seat in the Senate, and he KNOWS that.

[Herman4747]

91. Trouble is, this fellow here also regards her as a friend...

Ouch!! That's got to sting! Stings real bad, doesn't it?

Deal with it.

Hey, it's not me supporting the immoral candidate, is it now?

[MADem]

93. That kind of immature carping is beneath you.

You put up a picture of Kissinger and Clinton receiving the "German Freedom Award" --seven long years ago--like people are supposed to go "Ooooooooooh!" Do you realize that kind of thing reflects on YOU?

Shall I put up a pic of Sanders in Nicaragua, or dig up some USSR footage? Because, ya know, that's "proof" of something?

It is possible to have a relationship with someone with whom you disagree politically. Adults do this ALL THE TIME. Children have a tougher time, though.

Funny--the one thing Sanders says about Clinton is that she is his FRIEND. And he should call her his friend, because she's a big reason he made it to the Senate in the first place. So...should we know HIM by the company HE keeps, too?

smh. The bitterness here is just astounding to me.

[Herman4747]

96. It's not just a photo.

"I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time." -- Your beloved Hillary

What's more astounding, and far more meaningful, is the indifference to immorality among some.

[MADem]

98. Not sure what you think you are proving, but doubling down isn't making your case.

In fact, it's having the very opposite effect. It IS just a photo--at a German AWARDS ceremony.

In 2009.

And you're acting like you've discovered a secret video, or something--which is rather sad.

You do realize that both Republicans AND Democrats can be talented administrators? Or do you think only Democrats know how to organize and run a Cabinet Department?

Your quote doesn't support your dire remarks about "immorality." She made sure the checks went out, the travel claims got paid, and the workforce morale was good. That, too, is part and parcel of "running" the State Department.

And more to the point--something you seem to COMPLETELY overlook--is that the Secretary of State is an INSTRUMENT of the will the POTUS. Her job was to execute HIS FOREIGN POLICY. She was not an independent actor. If you're shitting on Clinton, you are shitting on Obama. See, she is his diplomatic TOOL, his sharpened scalpel, to exercise his diplomatic will around the globe, just as Kissinger was Nixon's.

If you don't understand how government works, though, that key detail might escape your notice. I'm sure if you think about it, though, you'll realize just how intemperate and petulant your comments appear. You can--and should--do better.

[Herman4747]

107. Okay, I guess you have kept your head in the sand...

...completely ignoring the numerous posts at DU showing the duplicity, the insincerity, and the corruption of Hillary.

Let's start with a simple question: WHAT THE HELL DOES YOUR BELOVED HAVE TO HIDE WITH REGARDS TO WHAT SHE TOLD GOLDMAN-SACHS FOR $675,000??? Do tell.

I don't recall a video a video like this one being made about Bernie, do you?
https;//

Bear in mind that the lies the video features are not the most recent lies. Heck, Segami caught six of her lies in a single week recently.

Also, you don't like Obama getting "shitted on"? Hillary certainly DOES A LOT OF THIS TOO IN THE VIDEO.

And what evidence do you have that Henry Kissinger was praising just her "administrative" skills?

[MADem]

108. I'm not going to play the sea lion game with you.

Your hate video (my, what a collection at the source of that thing) doesn't convince me, your demands that I produce "evidence" are a gish gallop, and --I'm pretty sure the math will show you this, likely sooner rather than later--Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and Bernie Sanders will a) Endorse her, and b) Turn over his unused funds to the DNC so that our team can win in November.

You don't have to believe this, but I do think time will bear out my assertions.

[Herman4747]

110. It's been wisely said that "None are so blind as he who will not see."

Think it over. FOR YOUR OWN SAKE.

[MADem]

111. I'm looking forward to seeing Clinton nominated and elected.

There's nothing to think over--it's all down to math.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/hillary_clinton_wins_ohio_florida_north_carolina_is_now_the_presumptive.html

[Herman4747]

112. And should the day come, where a little girl approaches you...

...and says to you, "my parents tell me that the President of the United States has shown she is the best liar. Is the President a good role model for me?" -- do you look forward to having to reply?

[MADem]

114. smdh! A churlish attitude won't change reality.

Herman4747
112. And should the day come, where a little girl approaches you...
View profile
...and says to you, "my parents tell me that the President of the United States has shown she is the best liar. Is the President a good role model for me?" -- do you look forward to having to reply?

I doubt that little girls will approach me in the manner you postulate, asking a question that sounds like something Ted Cruz framed.

I mean, come on--just UGH. You really need to just give it a rest. You are disappointed, but you're going to have to get over it. You're not the first one who backed a candidate who underperformed and didn't achieve the goals they set.

It's life and it's politics. No need to invent little girls whose imaginary, creepy, childhood-crushing parents tell them, perversely and sanctimoniously, that the first woman president is a liar.

It's just pointless for anyone to get so wrapped around the axle because they're so red-eye-blind angry that their guy is in what is looking, increasingly, like an untenable position.

You will eventually see that this kind of thing doesn't help.

[Herman4747]

115. I suppose it doesn't help...

...you refuse to confront issues of morality, despite all my attempts.

Sigh.

[MADem]

116. I'm not going to play a "let's exchange a list of virtues" game with you.

Your candidate has said some incredibly thoughtless and horrible things about women, child rearing, about uterine and breast cancer, etc. For starters. He hasn't "always been there" for the LGBT community. His record on guns, well, it SUCKS. He tries to grab the high ground on a single IWR vote, yet voted, year in/year out, despite the fact that a CR would prevent any "harm to the troops," for increased funding to prosecute wars he claimed to not like. He's never met a drone he didn't like, and he's best friends with the Boys at McDonnell Douglas. His justification/excuses for going along and getting along with that nightmare called the F-35 do not stand the smell test.

There's plenty of that "issues of morality" nonsense to go around.

Sea lions. Sigh.

[Herman4747]

117. Being there for the LGBT community???

YOUR IDIOTIC CANDIDATE OPPOSED THE RIGHT OF HOMOSEXUALS TO MARRY UNTIL 2013!!!



She was wanting to get her campaign for presidency off to a good start, so, of course, she changed her position. She'll do that, as SHE HAS NO SINCERITY. So don't make me laugh.

My candidate "says" things you don't like. When your candidate was on the Board of Directors of WalMart for SIX damn years, not once did she tell the company to permit facilitation of unionization. NO, INSTEAD SHE PRAISED THE COMPANY, a company notoriously hostile toward unions, even owning stock in it.

Again, my candidate "says" things you find objectionable (Oh, but DO TELL WHAT BERNIE SAID ABOUT UTERINE CANCER THAT WAS SO BAD). Your candidate actually IMPLEMENTS WICKED ACTIVITIES. Like helping to bring about the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Honduras (This is the type of thing Hillary's good buddy, Henry Kissinger, was proud of, in case you didn't know). http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup

Your candidate absolutely refuses to state that she will break up banks "too big to fail." Do explain to her why she should, WHEN THESE BANKS ARE PAYING HER OFF.

Your beloved candidate, Hillary, declares that 78 million people, the Iranians, are her "enemy." The Iranians are NOT my enemy, are they your enemy??? Yes or no, or are you going to refuse to answer? HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE IRANIAN PEOPLE REACT TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS???? Here is an article describing the affair, written by someone (Danielle Kamal) from Massachusetts! http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/clintons-iranian-enemies/

Your candidate is messed up in the head. Sigh.

[MADem]

118. And yours did the same--despite telling YOU otherwise-- in 2006.

He thought marriage equality was "too divisive" for his OWN constituents in VT. Why? Because they let him know they weren't ready for it, and he wanted to win a Senate race. It's on video over at CSPAN--this isn't a secret.

You're really going to die on the "Who said it first" hill? He has changed HIS position, too--plenty of times, in response to his constituency.

Pro tip: It's what politicians do. They figure out what their supporters want, and they serve as a voice for them.


And all the BOLDING AND CAPITALIZATION AND UNDERLINING (AND HELL!!!! LET ME THROW IN SOME ITALICIZATION AND A SURFEIT OF EXCLAMATION POINTS, TOO!!!!!!) will not change that simple fact.

Look, Sanders has said some things (let's check those old newspapers, shall we?) that I consider to be massively uninformed to the point of utter stupidity, but I take his word when he says he's learned from his errors and doesn't feel that way anymore. I don't persist in beating him up over old stances, or call him "idiotic" or other names.

As someone who can speak to how Iranians feel, I have to tell you this--her remarks were aimed at the government, not the people. You might be a bit nonplussed to learn how many Persian-Americans support her candidacy--it's a massive number. And nothing, to my view, would be a better "lesson" to the ulema than a female POTUS of the nation that leads the free world. Even if you don't like it. It would send a huge signal to half the population of Iran that there are places in the world where their gender does not constrain them.

[Herman4747]

119. Okay, so when she meant "the Iranian government"

she was TOO DAMN DUMB TO SAY SO, and said instead "the Iranians" are her enemy. And all 78 million Iranians are, quite naturally, going to know straight away, "Oh, she's not talking about us; she's talking about our government."

Very interesting that you should bring up Iranian-Americans. Okay, then, let's pay a brief visit to the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans, shall we? From http://www.paaia.org/CMS/hillary-clinton-needs-to-clarify-offensive-iranian-comment.aspx

During last night’s Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, Secretary Hillary Clinton made what many view as highly offensive and incendiary comments by equating Iranians as her enemy.
During the final comments of the debate, the moderator asked the Democratic candidates, “Which enemy are you most proud of?” The former U.S. secretary of state and ex-U.S. senator replied, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies… the Iranians… probably the Republicans.”
While her intentions may have been different, many ordinary Iranians have taken offence. “As the former Secretary of State and one who is seeking the highest office in the nation, Secretary Clinton should make clear that her remarks do not reflect her attitude toward the Iranian people,” said Dr. Leila Austin, Executive Director of the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA). “Such insensitive and incendiary remarks have a potential to damage long-term U.S. interests"


Female political leaders of countries are not something new -- Pakistan (which borders Iran) had Benazir Bhutto. And of course, the UK had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Gandhi, Denmark had Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Germany has Angela Merkel, Norway has Erna Solberg, Israel had Golda Meir, etc. What's stupid is voting for Hillary just because she's a woman. You don't know anybody dumb enough to do that, do you?

Pro tip (just for you) I do not want a politician who lets his or her position be determined by polls. (At one point in history, keeping slaves may have polled quite well). Politicians should be elected who have the time and capability to explore issues more deeply, and who then strive to do the right thing!

[MADem]

120. And now your response is "She is too damn dumb....?"

Look, I'm not going to cast-any-asparagus, here, but when someone is talking about relationships between nations, the person who thinks that she's talking about anything other than governments is the one who needs to check their smartie level.


I didn't read the rest. That comment was just to OTT for me. Heckuvajob!

You don't want a conversation--you want a punching bag, upon which to vent your bitter, angry, disappointment.

That's understandable. He tried very hard. He simply fell short. Even POTUS has acknowedged it.

But you're going to have to look somewhere else for your whipping boy.

I'm not going to play that role.

Like I said....sea lions!

[Herman4747]

121. And I know why you "didn't read the rest"

It would have been far too painful for you to observe your arguments completely destroyed. You also prefer to hide your head in the sand rather then confront the notable and perverse flaws of your beloved candidate.

[MADem]

122. I didn't read the rest because you were trending towards petulant and abusive. nt

[warrprayer]

79. It's only over

When we quit or Bernie quits.
And I wouldn't bet on either.

[markj757]

46. I think its obvious....

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:00 PM - Edit history (2)

that Hillary is on the verge of becoming the presumptive democratic nominee after last night. And although I support her candidacy with some reluctance about her shady political machine, I think she will do a good job as President except on issues regarding the Palestinian crisis. I will say this about Bernie, that the liberal wing of the Democratic party could not have a stronger champion, and a louder voice for the issues and policies they care about most. There was a reason SNL did a skit morphing Hillary into Bernie during the primary. Not only will she not forget as she runs in the general, but she also won't forget if she wins the Presidency that she was on the razors edge of loosing a sure fire primary victory, against a Socialist Democrat and the most liberal man in national politics. And I think she will do her best to make sure those liberal ideas are reflected in her policies and how she governs. Because honestly, I don't think she would have been so quick to embrace such a liberal agenda, if not for Bernie Sanders. She would have ran as a moderate to conservative Democrat looking to the general election and never looked back. And to me, that makes Bernie's candidacy win or loose, a tremendous success for the Democratic party.

[LittleGirl]

47. Well, this voter

is still going to root for Bernie. Nothing is over yet. When is the convention? And frankly, her side needs to realize that there are people like me, that refuse to vote for her even if she does win the nom. I sat out on voting for 2 decades, won't hurt me to do it again. And I live in Europe where Democratic Socialism works great and I'm living it.

[brooklynite]

58. Please inform us...

Which States and how "massive"?

[MADem]

75. You're being confronted with an obstreperous inability to confront facts at this stage.

It will percolate down into the psyche, eventually.

[peacebird]

62. I think so also, and welcome!

[MADem]

109. More like farewell. He didn't last but a minute. nt

[mcar]

56. K&R

[pdsimdars]

59. Hasn't she been the presumptive nominee for a couple of years now? (presumptuous)

[thereismore]

60. Wasn't she always? Not news to me. nt

[mountain grammy]

68. So what you're saying to all those enthusiastic young folks who are

actually showing up to vote for a decent and honest man.. screw you, the party bosses will decide this. Business as usual, kids, no future for you! Go home an be quiet until we tell you who to vote for, but you better vote blue because even though she sounds a bit hawkish, she gets a big D after her name. If you can't get a good job, don't worry. With Hillary in charge, the military will be hiring.

Sorry, think I'll hold out for Bernie and a better way.

[vintx]

77. +1

[silvershadow]

71. at least that's what they like you to think

[maindawg]

76. Slot can happen

She could get indighted for deleting 30,000 emails.I know Bush did it too but he wasn't running for office. And he didnt have a private server in his house. Or Bernie might get a copy of her wall street speeches , eventually someone will. All the filth and even h coming from the DLC may force Bernie to run as an independent. When the Rethugs melt down and install a Bush or a Romney and the Donald decides to take his ball and run indipendendent all of a sudden you have a 4 way race, 5 if you include newly relevant green party 6 possibly as the demographics get sliced and diced because everyone hates the two party system so much. Anyone could win that race. The debates would be fantastic.
Both Hillary and Donald are criminals. Either one would be subject to impeachment proceedings from day one. Canada would be over run with applications , mine would be in luded. If it came down to those two, I'm voting green.

[liberalnarb]

78. Good news for both Dems is rubio dropping out.

He was the only repug that was a threat to the dems in a general.

[AlbertCat]

80. Hillary Clinton Is Now the Presumptive Democratic Nominee

If you say so....


Too bad name recognition, DNC shenanigans and media bias aren't gonna be so useful in the General Election. Hillary does not inspire a huge swath of voters in the general population.

[PoliticAverse]

81. Just like she was back when she announced she was running...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive

We have a while to go to find out who the actual nominee will be.

[HassleCat]

101. So we're back to square one?

This presumptive nominee stuff sounds like what we heard six months ago.

[Agnosticsherbet]

102. Clinton's lead of 300 - double the largest lead Barack Obama ever had over Hillary Clinton in 2008.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-back-track-win-dem-nomination-n539696

With proportional awarding of delegates, the climb form so far behind is unlikely.

[wiggs]

113. Bernie will do well from here on out, for four reasons

Bernie will do well from here on out, for four reasons:

1) He has been and will continue to be awesome

2) HRC will begin a pivot to the general election, in terms of rhetoric and spending...thinking that's where the next battle is. She needs to keep talking policy and contrast with Bernie but more and more she'll be contrasting with republicans and talking about Trump. Bernie may benefit with some voters who are just now starting to pay attention and won't see her talking about Bernie's weak spots as much

3) Bernie will being a pivot to the general election too...believing that the importance of the movement outweighs the importance of his own individual campaign and knowing his individual campaign is a long shot now. It will be subtle, because he still needs to solidify his policies within the democratic platform and ensure they get the attention they deserve...but I doubt you'll see from him as much fiery contrast between his policies/history and HRC's. He'll be able to increase the contrast between his policies and those of the GOP oligarchy...the contrast will be stark and will help him. it's a significantly easier case to make and he can let it rip without party consequences. He can and will still make headlines.

4) I feel Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina did me and other voters like me a favor and will allow us to vote for Bernie without reservation next month. With the nomination apparently almost out of reach for Bernie (barring HRC disaster), more people can vote with their hearts without thinking about the risk of a Bernie general election battle with Trump or Cruz or Kasich. A vote for Bernie right now is a vote for the MOVEMENT which needs to continue to grow and gain momentum. And I think a lot of people are interested in both the MOVEMENT he started and in securing the WH for dems.