Hillary feels the Bern, concedes New Hampshire, down by 20 pts!

[Strk]

I don't think the Democrat establishment is so retarded as to deny Bernie the nomination if he wins the popular primary. In the short term it would splinter the party and be a boon to Republicans, if for no other reason than decreased voter turnout. In the medium-term it would just pour gasoline on the anti-establishment fire, and there would be hell to pay in 2020.

I could definitely see it tank the voter turn out for the Democrats if that happened. They would essentially be handing over the White House to the GOP.

 

[Exophase]

Had to laugh at the huffinton headline. What a bunch of tools.

They actually have an official policy in place to put a disclaimer that Trump is a racist, sexist xenophobe in every article about him.

 

[master_shake_]

They actually have an official policy in place to put a disclaimer that Trump is a racist, sexist xenophobe in every article about him.

that helps him though.

everyone is a little bit racist, sexist, and xenophobic and in a secret ballot it's easier to be that.

 

[Exophase]

that helps him though.

everyone is a little bit racist, sexist, and xenophobic and in a secret ballot it's easier to be that.

Probably doesn't help HuffPo though.

 

[Hugo Drax]

except Hillary won NH LOL 15 to 13 delegates.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If for ANY reason Hillary is the nomination. Whoever the republican candidate is will win 100% for sure.

Because 30% of democrats just wont vote. I pulled that percentage directly from my ass but still. Its true.

Nominating Hillary is an instant loss because many many democrats consider her too conservative. She votes the same way as republicans on way too many issues.

INSTANT LOSS!!!

"I just made these numbers up, but they are accurate" 🙄

 

[LPCTech]

"I just made these numbers up, but they are accurate" 🙄

That is correct. Now that I think about it, its more like 31.46%. :sneaky:

 

[dullard]

except Hillary won NH LOL 15 to 13 delegates.

Not yet. The superdelegates haven't voted yet. That is the media guessing where they might vote.

 

[Exophase]

Not yet. The superdelegates haven't voted yet. That is the media guessing where they might vote.

They haven't voted, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just the media guessing. The current figures are based off of pledges made by the superdelegates.

You could say that this is the media guessing that they'll vote the same as their pledge (although I don't think they're really saying that), but saying they're guessing sounds like the votes were picked based off of indirect statements or analysis.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the best part eh? That is what happens when party bosses dont attempt to install a presidential candidate before the election cycle even starts. There is a wide range of candidates from which to choose.

For the party of ideas the DNC presented one idea. But a sizeable % of democrat members have another idea with Bernie.

The Repub establishment all lined up behind Jeb, remember? It's not like the attempt wasn't made. It just didn't work.

The differences between Hillary & Bernie aren't all that great, particularly in view of likely accomplishments. Chances of flipping the HOR are miniscule while the chances of the Freedom Caucus extorting the rest of the Party are very large. A sweeping legislative agenda for either would be an exercise in futility.

It's also quite amusing to see arch conservatives like yourself fluffing for Bernie Sanders.

 

[dullard]

They haven't voted, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just the media guessing. The current figures are based off of pledges made by the superdelegates.

You could say that this is the media guessing that they'll vote the same as their pledge (although I don't think they're really saying that), but saying they're guessing sounds like the votes were picked based off of indirect statements or analysis.

Your word "pledge" is the problem. The current superdelegate list comes from this survey:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/98c6...has-early-commanding-delegate-lead-nomination

The Associated Press contacted all 712 superdelegates in the past two weeks, and heard back from more than 80 percent. They were asked which candidate they plan to support at the convention next summer.
The results:
Clinton: 359.
Sanders: 8.
O'Malley: 2.
Uncommitted: 210.

Someone you "plan to support" and a "pledge" are two completely different things. We estimate that they won't change their mind. And that is a reasonable estimate if Clinton actually wins the popular primary vote. But until we get closer to the end we are guessing that Clinton will win the popular vote. Clinton is in the lead in the polls, but polls this far out are highly unreliable and in politics anything can change overnight.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think the Democrat establishment is so retarded as to deny Bernie the nomination if he wins the popular primary. In the short term it would splinter the party and be a boon to Republicans, if for no other reason than decreased voter turnout. In the medium-term it would just pour gasoline on the anti-establishment fire, and there would be hell to pay in 2020.

It's about delegates. Hillary actually had more votes in primary states in 2008 but Obama had more delegates selected in caucus states.

Both methods are equally valid.

 

[Exophase]

If for ANY reason Hillary is the nomination. Whoever the republican candidate is will win 100% for sure.

Because 30% of democrats just wont vote. I pulled that percentage directly from my ass but still. Its true.

Nominating Hillary is an instant loss because many many democrats consider her too conservative. She votes the same way as republicans on way too many issues.

INSTANT LOSS!!!

I sure hope you're wrong.

In at least some ways I personally dislike Hillary more than any of the other candidates running. Probably for some reasons that aren't really that objective. But if she wins the primaries I'm voting for her. Because I just can't see her not being a better president than any of the running Republicans, especially the ones with any realistic chance of winning. They have platforms based on things I can't relate with at all.

I just don't get why people would refuse to vote unless they really thought about it and decided that she was no better than the person she's running against, and she seems to align with Sanders on way more than any of them do...

 

[Theb]

No love lost between Huffington and Trump.

.@ariannahuff is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/240462265680289792

 

[Exophase]

Your word "pledge" is the problem. The current superdelegate list comes from this survey:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/98c6...has-early-commanding-delegate-lead-nomination


Someone you "plan to support" and a "pledge" are two completely different things. We estimate that they won't change their mind. And that is a reasonable estimate if Clinton actually wins the popular primary vote. But until we get closer to the end we are guessing that Clinton will win the popular vote. Clinton is in the lead in the polls, but polls this far out are highly unreliable and in politics anything can change overnight.

Fair enough. The reports I read describing the AP's superdelegate poll described their support as pledges rather than current plans, which now looks to have been misleading. A pledge definitely sounds more committed than a plan.

I think the best way to put it is that these superdelegates will almost certainly support Clinton in the event that she's leading the popular vote. If she isn't we don't really know what will happen, but it'll probably involve a lot of them not voting for the ones they reported.

If the media or anyone else does suggest that the superdelegate votes are final then yeah, that would imply they're guessing that Hillary will win the popular vote. Still maybe different from guessing where the superdelegates stand, but that's just a nit pick.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Clintons secret weapon is black pastors and other related powerplayers in the black community who smell clinton money and want to wet thier beak in the action. Sanders cannot offer this and this is where he will lose the election.

The black powerplayers will deliver the black vote in a silver platter, clinton has the money and Sanders does not.

Anyhow interesting article on how clintons helped the black people.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

 

[JSt0rm]

Clintons secret weapon is black pastors and other related powerplayers in the black community who smell clinton money and want to wet thier beak in the action. Sanders cannot offer this and this is where he will lose the election.

The black powerplayers will deliver the black vote in a silver platter, clinton has the money and Sanders does not.

Anyhow interesting article on how clintons helped the black people.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

How dare they help black people!

 

[werepossum]

Those super delegates aren't committed to staying with Clinton though, right?

I was just talking about normal delegates.

Nope. And since the point of the superdelegates is to artificially increase the party's chance of winning the general, if Sanders begins to win, many if not most will switch to him as long as he looks like he has a decent shot at winning the general. Better to lose one election than to piss off one's core voters.

Had to laugh at the huffinton headline. What a bunch of tools.

Glad to see Kasich do well though, better than I expected.

Agreed. He's the only Pubbie running that I actually like - which of course means he has no chance in hell. lol

I don't think the Democrat establishment is so retarded as to deny Bernie the nomination if he wins the popular primary. In the short term it would splinter the party and be a boon to Republicans, if for no other reason than decreased voter turnout. In the medium-term it would just pour gasoline on the anti-establishment fire, and there would be hell to pay in 2020.

That's true. There's a much better chance of the GOP burning its voters via a brokered convention to avoid nominating Trump.

 

[werepossum]

Clintons secret weapon is black pastors and other related powerplayers in the black community who smell clinton money and want to wet thier beak in the action. Sanders cannot offer this and this is where he will lose the election.

The black powerplayers will deliver the black vote in a silver platter, clinton has the money and Sanders does not.

Anyhow interesting article on how clintons helped the black people.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Maybe. But the money the Clintons can shell out now is loose change compared to the money any President can shell out. If black leaders honestly believe Sanders will be a better President than Mrs. Clinton, then a lot of them will forgo personal graft now in return for more money for their favored causes later. One key will be whether they believe Sanders can deliver, as most money has to come through Congress.

EDIT: Just as an aside, I have a serious problem with Michelle Alexander's article, even though I agree with a lot of what she says. "Black communities" don't commit crimes, criminals do. Being soft of crime simply means being soft on criminals, not soft on "Black communities".

 

[TheSlamma]

It's about delegates. Hillary actually had more votes in primary states in 2008 but Obama had more delegates selected in caucus states.

Both methods are equally valid.

I remember you asking me I wouldn't register democrat cause it wouldn't be so bad and then I can vote for Bernie.

This is exactly why I don't, your party is corrupt and they do not represent the people. The one and only reason you are okay with this is because of your bias. You are actually the most bias person I have ever encountered in my life.

 

[Jhhnn]

I remember you asking me I wouldn't register democrat cause it wouldn't be so bad and then I can vote for Bernie.

This is exactly why I don't, your party is corrupt and they do not represent the people. The one and only reason you are okay with this is because of your bias. You are actually the most bias person I have ever encountered in my life.

You're not making sense. Caucuses vs primaries are an issue of States' Rights. Both parties hold caucuses in caucus states so whatever is true about that wrt one party is true of the other in those places. It's not like any of it has changed since forever.

I encourage everybody in caucus states to register with the party of their choice & to participate.

 

[Sonikku]

I remember you asking me I wouldn't register democrat cause it wouldn't be so bad and then I can vote for Bernie.

This is exactly why I don't, your party is corrupt and they do not represent the people. The one and only reason you are okay with this is because of your bias. You are actually the most bias person I have ever encountered in my life.

Thank god we're registered with the GoP, who are neither corrupt nor unwilling to represent the people like those Dems do. :Hmm:

 

[MagickMan]

No love lost between Huffington and Trump.


https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/240462265680289792

He's scum, but he often has the best zingers. 😀

 

[glenn1]

Hmmm. Seems things are not quite as calm and "inevitable" in Hillary's nomination march as she thought. Love the new "I'm not kidding" fundraising pitch, what next an email playing Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" to tug the heartstrings when you open it?

 

[nageov3t]

Hmmm. Seems things are not quite as calm and "inevitable" in Hillary's nomination march as she thought. Love the new "I'm not kidding" fundraising pitch, what next an email playing Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" to tug the heartstrings when you open it?

isn't like, every single political donation email like that?

I assume it gets better responses than "it's cool guys, I've got this election all locked up and there's nothing to worry about, but if you want to donate anyways, here's a link."