Huh. So, the networks have called the Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton tonight, only a few hours before voters go to the polls in New Jersey, California, and several other states. This doesn’t matter to me because I called this race months ago when the math became obvious. But it’s a big blow right in the stomach to Sanders’s supporters.
I suppose they’ll get over it. I mean, I basically have forgotten that the primary season was still going on because it has zero relevancy to me. I tuned out all the blather for my own mental health. So, I can tell you firsthand that things will gain a new focus once folks have a couple of weeks to adjust to reality. Do you want Donald Trump to be president of the United States?
I don’t.
I’m not voting for HRC. I’m not voting for Jill Stein either. I’m voting for down ticket dems. In all likelihood I will leave the top line blank. Mathematically this not a vote for Trump, I trust all you math guys can see that it does not actually add to Trumps vite total. I’m latino and look it, I’ll suffer worse than you under Trump. But I cannot bring myself to vote for people who will make things worse, only at a slower pace.
That’s all.
You can write a book. Call it: Present at the Machtergreifung.
It’ll be a page turner.
As if you’d ever read a book I’d write.
I’ll remember that when I’m up against the wall though, I have nothing against writing for history. And I do rather enjoy writing. All in all a good idea.
No, failure to vote for Hillary will, in fact, be a vote for Trump. Think about it, and then explain how it won’t.
In what country, right now, are you lucky enough to have these choices? In what country, right now, would your vote matter as much?
In what country, right now, could you justify such a selfish, juvenile decision?
When Trump gets elected, then you can explain too all those who suffer just how principled you are.
I’m sure they’ll be so impressed.
Grow the fuck up.
I’ll be 65 this fall and I’m not voting for HRC. I’m too old to grow the f*ck up.
Yes, but Booman and a lot of posters here aren’t. Thanks.
No, I’m not voting for HRC. I’ll let you apologize for her the next four years.
Then you should vote for Trump as well.
But you don’t actually care about any of the issues at stake.
Like endless war, gutting banking protections, wholesale fracking (she’s taking Koch money too),unlimited H1-B’s, banning country of origin labeling? We understand the issues very well.
Well good for you. Why not get a gas-guzzling car, maybe even one that runs on leaded gas.
You don’t give a shit, you’ll be dead soon.
Having come of age during the national campaign to save our environment, I have never driven a gas-guzzling car. It was just “immoral” to do so. My only regret is that I never learned to drive a stick shift.
Sticks never saved much gas in my experience owning five of them but they are fun to drive. If you ever get the chance to learn and master the skill, do it. Also too, clutch plates will go after 60k or so miles:)
According to how you drive, I just replaced a clutch in a dodge pick-up with 179,000 miles on it. Take it easy, and things last longer
We gotta burn this country to the fucking ground in order to save it.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016
Having taken Sociology 101, we need to make some big changes or our country will slowly simmer to a boil. Let’s take a look at the important components of a society: family, political structure, economic system, education, and religion. The family is threatened since many parents have to work 2 jobs and rarely eat a meal together; our political parties are fractured; our economic system is not working for 80% of the people; education is under attack from many fronts; and secularism is on the rise significantly. Not much left to burn down.
Yeah. So Trump it is!
Are you recruiting people for Trump or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Right now things are bad and getting a lot worse for a lot of people in America. If the Democrats are going to be the party of status quo, then someone else will be the party of change.
I really hope that Hillary doesn’t continue to wage wars around the world, to keep backing the wealthy over the poor. I truly hope I am absolutely wrong about her.
And I hope that her supporters can tell the difference between rhetoric and action.
Well, Hillary’s actions do not match your rhetoric, Bob.
Not sure if that’s what you meant.
Well shit.
You’ve taken Sociology 101.
So, go vote for Trump now.
Make America Great Again.
I’ve taken Psychology 101, too. So, go vote for Hillary now.
Simple really. Trump ends with X votes if I were to vote HRC and Trump ends up with X votes if I don’t. Mathematically Trumps vote total is unchanged.
I don’t know about you but I don’t consider these choices lucky. I obviously don’t see refusing to support the system in this matter as juvenile. As I said, I just cant support someone who I think will make my society worse. That the other guy would make it much much worse is just not enough for me, not anymore.
If you believe Booman, if HRC loses this I think there will be many better people to blame than I. But go ahead and blast me if you like.
scaring voters about a Trump presidency is the Clinton’s only program, aside from the covert pro wall street pro corporation pro war program as far as I can tell. Although I completely oppose a Trump presidency I think that a % of significant Republicans also oppose a Trump presidency. it’s not open and shut that Trump will be their candidate
I am not american, but i fucking dare you to go vote Trump.
You clearly are helping him, might as well vote for him too.
Alternatively you could tone it down a notch and let the grown ups handle this.
Again not american, just talking to to the kids for a second.
y’r walking on the fighting side of me
guess you can’t read very well either
Not specifically commenting on you, more on the reflexive idiosyncratic behavior that will make people attack Clinton for a long time. To me its a sign of immaturity.
Not that i wasnt trolling for reactions. I wont claim to be better than anyone else.
don’t be a dick.
I rather enjoy being a dick to dicks, and tell them why they are dicks too, the dicks never like to be called out on their dickishness, and soon start behaving like cocks, not that being cockish helps them being less assholish, they think that adding prosthetic balls to their dick will distract the public from the fact that its just a tiny micro penis.
you whiners living in your cushy socialist countries (and letting Germany do your dirty work for you) want to complain – call a whaambulance.
Hahahaha, thank you for your grown up comment, you sure seem very mature.
I can understand your feelings on this. And I toyed with the idea myself but what does that really do? I don’t want Donald to think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning or ever had one. He is a bigot and he behaves like a child. So I will vote Hillary, much as it is distasteful bc the alternative is just soooooo bad.
Tactically if he and other GOPers think he has a chance they’ll spend resources there that can’t be used in the states to swamp local races.
What does voting for her do? Not influence. ‘Where you gonna go nonwhite guy, Trump?’ I live in MN which chose Rubio over Trump so I’m not concerned about that outcome. And if Booman is right and Trump is crushed then my vote is certainly not needed.
The alternative is much worse but I’m done with picking lesser evils. That said, I’m not going to run out and try to convince people not to vote HRC in the general election or act like its a morally superior decision and all right thinking progressives should stay home.
increases or reduces (depending who wins) the winning margin by one, relative to voting for Hil.
That’s just a fact.
A mathematical fact, in fact.
You seem pretty determined to keep yourself convinced otherwise, though, so I’d be surprised to see this mathematical fact make a difference to your declared course of action.
a wild ride this evening, oaguabonita; lots of smiting of troll comments and now some – -s are uprating annainflorida’s comments
How is Denise doing? making her presence felt I hope
to report.
Except that, though behind Zinke in fundraising, hers has been robust enough to ensure she can compete in that respect.
good to hear. nice comment below about mixed record!
on my crusade about words having meanings.
what about other people’s suffering under a president trump? where is your empathy? im so sick of privileged selfish pricks defending their hillary hate with weak self righteous arguments.
You chose her when you knew she was much despised among the American electorate. You chose to look away from all the quid pro quo going on with her and her monied friends. You chose to look away when she continued the PNAC script.
And now you call people who do not like Clinton’s relationship with the ultra rich “privileged selfish pricks”?
My my my. I’m so privileged maybe you can slice some more off my social security check.
Bob, Hillary is campaigning on increasing Social Security benefits. You’re just flailing about wildly now.
If you are otherwise a loyal Dem in past presidential elections, then it is mathematically helpful to Trump.
It is like you’re a Twins fan with a one game lead over Detroit. If the Twins lose, you lose half a game in the standings even if Detroit is not playing. You’re staying out of it is like TeamDem loses half a game (or vote). If you voted for Trump, the Trump gets a one vote gain.
So, if enough Dems like you sit this out, then Trump is raking in the 1/2 votes on his way to the Presidency.
I’m aghast at the tonedeafness of her handlers, letting her clinch with a wave of superdelegates before the last primaries are held.
They simply could not have made a bigger or dumber mistake.
The campaign was telling the party official and elected delegates to hold off, but apparently enough blabbed to the AP for it to get to the magic number. I expect tomorrow or Wednesday we’ll see another 100 or so that did keep their mouths shut. More than likely, almost all of the official and elected delegates, even ones currently supporting Bernie, will support Hillary once she has a majority of pledged delegate.
With so many to put her over and so few needed I supposed it’s not much of a surprise it leaked.
It’s exactly the sort of unforced error that the Clintons make all the goddam time. I am so sick of this shit.
Hard to call it an error. They aren’t in control of what superdelegates tell reporters.
Don’t you know the Clinton’s control everything?
Neoliberals are like that, they have their fingers everywhere.
.
They control everything? Cool, that’s a useful quality for a president.
Your snark detector needs adjustment.
.
Silly nalbar! S/he was snarking in harmony.
I get so confused. The hackery is powerful today.
.
It’s OK. So many crazy things have been said recently, that it’s impossible to tell.
The Clinton’s told the remaining supers to not make an public endorsement announcement until after the primaries on Tuesday and they didn’t. What did do is take AP’s call and answer yes I will be supporting Clinton but don’t use my name. Based on the numbers from that round of calls AP called the race.
Conspiracy theories run wild, right? Meanwhile, as someone who already voted in Cali, I am highly disappointed with the AP. While Sanders lost me with his antics in New York, I enjoyed the excitement of having both candidates in California. Though I voted already, I think it’s too bad the AP couldn’t hold off until polls close in New Jersey, at least. Oh well, I guess.
He lost me when he threw his panties at the Pope like some 16 year old groupie at a Led Zeppelin concert.
.
I think you suffer from media bias. Here is an article that clears up your affliction.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-18/media-miss-the-point-of-bernie-sanders-vatican-mee
ting-with-pope-francis
“In fact, from day one, when the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences sent the initial invite to the senator in late March, much of the U.S. media reframed the news to be about “who invited who” versus what the invite entailed. The original invite came from the chancellor of the pontifical academy with the stated consensus of its president, and it was this Vatican-body that first wanted Sanders to come and speak on the encyclical’s anniversary. And since the Nobel Laureate-stacked academy’s relationship to the Vatican is akin to the Congressional Research Service’s connection to Congress or the Council of Economic Advisers’ association with the White House, no serious senator could say no, no matter how poorly timed politically. It was too important to pass up, an aspect that media outlets conveniently ignored.”
That addressed nothing.
.
Since the Sanders/Vatican article didn’t grab you, how about a song from Led Zeppelin. You mentioned them first.
I like them.
I once read an article where they had a contest in England for people to pick the best guitarist, drummer, front man, etc. as individuals.
The members of Led Zepplin won each category. I don’t put them on quite that level, but their pretty good.
They’re getting sued on that song, BTW.
.
I just listened to Spirit’s Taurus. There is a 20 second section (around 0:45) that does sound similar to Stairway to Heaven. I like the words to Stairway. Saw Led Zeppelin in concert in 1970.
Ya, I thought so too, but I’m no music expert.
Seems like they would all be ‘borrowing’ eventually. All musicians do is listen to music. Imagine the tunes that run through their heads. Seems like it would get confusing of where any tune originated.
.
I used to go to a LOT of concerts. Most famous was Hendrix, the year before he died.
.
I hated what happened to both Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Great performers. I’ve thought about the music similarities, as well. Gospel & blues influenced so much music later. All those people are long gone, so no lawsuits. There weren’t deep pockets, anyway.
Don’t forget Elvis, he was bigger than them all. Dead at 42. He had it all.
I was also here
.
How could anyone forget Elvis? I’ve been to his boyhood home in Tupelo, MS and Graceland to pay homage to the king. Memphis has some great blues places too. You were lucky to hear all those good musicians in Palm Springs. I especially like Paul Butterfield. I’m so glad we have the “oldies”. Cream is another good group. There were so many performers back then. My last “big” concert was Bruce Springsteen in 1981.
My last was Leon Russell at the Forum, late 70’s I think.
.
Oh, let him have his panties obsession. He’s used it here three times. Must be fond of it.
And your obsessed with yourself.
.
I have no idea what that means but it certainly seems akin to what I would expect from Trump. So don’t bother explaining it to me.
What unforced error?? Clinton didn’t leak anything to the AP. They called 13 superdelegates, who told them they were committed to voting for Hillary. The truth be told, the Clinton people didn’t want this info leaked out in the first place.
clinton did not make an error. the media looking for ratings did. it was a slow night.
Both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign have called for waiting until after the primaries to see who wins. That says both are confident that their GOTV efforts will deliver a winning batch of pledged delegates.
It’s not clear how many delegates are hanging out there from other candidates. Has O’Malley released his delegates (if any) and endorsed?
Given the jungle primaries in California, let’s hope for lots of Dem-Dem results for Congress and the legislature. If those also are progressive-establishment matchups with both winning, we could see California move in a more progressive direction.
No, they are doing exactly what they should. They are conveying the reality. They do not have any obligation to further the Bernie delusion.
For them, rationally, the idea is to put Bernie down as soon as they can. It is not their obligation to nurture the fallacy that Bernie can somehow win. Which he can’t, so let’s face reality, shall we?
Hillary is in a position to put Trump down decisively now. Maybe that doesn’t mean shit to you. It means a lot to the rest of us. Trump is on the process of being eviscerated, and this is no time to take the focus off that. Bernie can’t win. Long live Bernie.
Now, do you want to defeat Trump? Or do you want to indulge a pointless vanity race?
Wouldn’t it be funny if this backfired on HRC’s campaign? HRC supporters can just stay home tomorrow since there’s no reason to vote. Bernie supporters have continued to vote for Bernie for months, although everyone tells them it’s useless. Progressives don’t like to be told what to do by the establishment. They never did.
Does sound tone deaf to me. What the Clinton campaign doesn’t get, still doesn’t get is that she is the most untrusted and disliked candidate ever to run for President, with the exception of the other guy.
The Clintons have gotten three billion from the wealthiest of the wealthy. She likes wars. Her foreign policy could be a photocopy of PNAC. It wasn’t a mistake that she voted to invade Iraq. It was always part of the plan.
Does she push for the poor people who been getting thrown into private prisons for drug crimes, or does she push for the owners of private prisons and the distributors of oxycontin, both of whom have heaped money on her?
Does she free up a generation from tuition debt, or does she back the banks who have showered her campaign with money and given even more to her for talking to them? Maybe she’ll throw herself behind Debbie and the payday lenders too.
In short, I didn’t support her prior to Sanders getting into the race and I don’t support her now.
If Trump is inevitable because some Bernie supporters can’t hold their nose to vote for Clinton, and if Trump’s so awful (and he is), then what does that say about the Democratic Party choosing her as their candidate.
If that’s the best that the Democratic Party can do, they aren’t good enough for my vote. It’s on you Hillary supporters for pushing the most awful candidate of my lifetime.
and still….millions more voted for her. maybe we just didnt want to vote for the guy who never paid child support, wasnt vetted, didnt bother to release his tax returns even though he promised over and over he would, and was a fraud from the beginning.
So, instead of seeing the Presidential election as a choice between the viable candidates in November, you plan to increase the chance that Trump is elected President because you want to punish the Democratic Party and all Hillary supporters? That doesn’t seem to be the best logical conclusion, but to each their own.
November is five months away.
I’m ticked at this because turnout here in California can make a big difference with the jungle primaries. My state assembly district is solidly Republican, but there’s one Democrat, one Independent, and (IIRC) five Republican candidates. It’s not out of the question you could have a Democrat vs. an Independent for this Republican district. Similar possibilities exist in both directions in many elections throughout this big state. I was pretty happy about having a contested Democratic primary (even if the final nominee is already set) and an uncontested Republican one.
At least the vote-by-mail ballots (including mine) are already in.
I’m telling all my friends that this isn’t over until someone has a majority of pledged delegates. I believe CA has the sense to vote despite this.
If it matters as much to the voters as it seems to matter to you, they’ll turn out.
If not, fuck them.
If the Democratic Party can’t do better than to nominate a Goldwater Girl, then fuck them.
really? a goldwater girl? 50 years ago? all the work she has done for americans esp women and children as well as women and children all over the world and all you got is goldwater girl? what do you call warren? a reagan girl?
didn’t she just win most popular person on the planet?
As far as her foreign policy, she hasn’t moved an inch to the left since she was writing pro-Vietnam speeches for Melvin Laird. What war has she opposed? Any?
When Hillary was 20 she was a Goldwater girl.
When Bernie was 20 (5 years earlier) he was at his first sit-in & joined SCLC.
Neither one could vote yet.
I know which youth was best spent. I know who would have been my friend.
I really doubt that’s in the talking points they gave you;
To the extent that people don’t bother to vote because “it doesn’t matter”, it screws a lot of down-ballot races. And at some point, the press is going to jump the gun and alter the outcome of the primary with this drive for a scoop.
The “I’ve called it so the voters don’t matter” attitude of the media eats at voter turnout over time. Opinion polls are thought to be determinative of elections so why vote.
Wisely, both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns called out the AP on being premature.
Voters snapping too like Trump is having the GOP do is more difficult in a democratic party where a sufficient number of people take the word “democratic” seriously. The Democratic Convention’s ability to wrangle creatively will be determinative of whether there is a President Trump. A common strategy for winning back the Congress has to be a major part of that wrangling.
The reality is that Democrats have not come to terms with the value proposition Trump has with his voters and how his rhetoric works to expand his support. What the GOP has decided is to be an echo chamber.
And the exposure of his fraudulent racket waits until after the election. Meanwhile there is the repetition of the word “Benghazi” and the ongoing FBI fascination with the Clinton emails buoying GOP hopes. Not to mention the mythology of the third term loss. The Clinton campaign nor the DNC should not think that they can coast to November.
WHile you think it should be a big blow right in the stomach of Sanders’s supporters, it might not actually be that if the Sanders’s campaign has primed voters for leaning into the tape at the end of the primaries regardless of media reports.
You will be delighted to know that Pat Buchanan has snapped his heels and swung into rank and file behind Drumpf.
Yeah. This makes sense. Not to me, but it makes sense.
Here’s your problem. The voters don’t want Bernie more than they want Hillary. It really sucks to lose a campaign, believe me I know.
But it’s over.
And if the voters want Trump over Clinton, then what’s wrong with that? It really sucks to lose a campaign, or lose running for President twice, and by having an awful candidate like Clinton the people in control of the Democratic Party have done this to themselves.
How many years do you think it’ll take Clinton to get out of Afghanistan?
By the way, are we still looking for Osama? That’s the “reason” we went in there.
the voters dont want trump over clinton. if bernie had been vetted nobody would have wanted him.
wow, her high distrust numbers must be getting to you,
Progressives knew Bernie better than Conservative Dems know Clinton even now. Bernie & Jane lead a life a hell of a lot closer to our lives than HRC & Bill ever have; especially. after the WH & cashing in on the speaking & foundation circuit. I’m a year younger than HRC, she’s never been my model of a good life – quite the opposite.
BTW, talking about feminism & the travails of working women, Jane knows a lot more about it, including academic misogyny.
I do think Sanders people are primed to lean into the tape and in a weird way this might produce more liberal down ballot candidates.
Pat Buchanan basically is Donald Trump. Just without the media savvy.
Pat Buchanan is a stone cold Nazi. Always has been.
Right. And?
…and apparently Hillary is just as bad, because reasons.
Hillary says, “We’re flattered, @AP, but we’ve got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!” And her campaign manager says, “This is an important milestone, but there are six states that are voting Tuesday, with millions of people heading to the polls, and Hillary Clinton is working to earn every vote. We look forward to Tuesday night, when Hillary Clinton will clinch not only a win in the popular vote, but also the majority of pledge delegates.”
They didn’t want this and aren’t taking advantage of it. Everyone agrees the race isn’t over until one side has a majority of pledged delegates, and that won’t be until tomorrow.
She has a majority of delegates. The only way Bernie wins is by having superdelegates defy the will of the people.
That’s how you want to win? You aren’t going to anyway, but this is what you hang your hat on? “Ignore the voters and vote for Bernie?”
Listen to yourself.
Judging by posting history, tb92 is not a Sanderista. Merely observing what the Clinton campaign itself is saying.
Ditto for me, by the way.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Moreover, there are plenty of non-presidential reasons why Clinton doesn’t want to deflate the primaries tomorrow, beginning with the California jungle elections.
Yeah, it’s easy to misinterpret what I said, but I’m a Clinton supporter. I think it is important that she didn’t ask for this. She wants to win by the voters, not the SDs. She also didn’t want to suppress today’s vote. Her desire to do this right is one of the things I love about her.
I don’t think Clinton’s hypothetical stance is particularly noble. It’s pragmatic, which is more important to me anyways. Clinton wants to head up a Democratic coalition with the largest majorities possible. That means threading a needle of sorts, since she needs to 1) unify the existing democratic coalition as much as possible, 3) maintain voter enthusiasm, ultimately increasing turnout and 3) thoroughly discredit the Republican candidate.
Of these, (1) is easiest, because five months is an eon in electoral politics, and most Democrats and -leaning voters will have no problem drawing the important distinction between Clinton and Trump (or Cruz, if he had been the nominee). The difference in policy positions, judicial appointments, temperament, etc. are particularly stark with Trump as the figurehead.
Maintaining enthusiasm is probably the hardest, for the same reason that unifying the base (of sorts) is the easiest. It’s one thing to get people to implicitly support you, but you need to get them to turn out, too. A competitive primary helps, I think. There’s not a lot of data here, but 2008 stands in favor, whereas the opposing view is supported by elections that occurred over a generation ago.
As for discrediting Trump, well.. that book writes itself.
Whatever her reasons, she’s doing the right thing. That’s all I need.
they are fucking nuts. sore losers. privileged selfish pricks. i usually describe the teabaggers as mouth breathing, poo flinging, knuckle dragging, bed wetting, whiny assed titty babies. it is amazing how the sandbaggers fit that description too.
BooMan, is shit like this accepted here now?
encouraging to see only May13th uprating that shit — thereby confirming the impression you had probably already formed (I know I had!) of him/her as well.
But what a nasty piece of work, that a.i.f.!
it appears may13th is a.i.f.’s designated fluffer (self-designated, presumably . . . unless sockpuppet!?!?!).
way over the top annaif…hence the well deserved rating.
To be honest, the more I think about this the less is there. A bare minimum of unpledged delegates have told the AP they’ll vote for Clinton, but won’t say it in public. That’s not anything close to a binding promise. Bernie’s saying they could change their minds and duh, of course they can. They could even be lying, for that matter.
To call the nomination on account of unpledged delegates you’d need the bare minimum to declare for Clinton and commit publicly to hold to that in the event of some drastic event. We’re not there yet.
To be honest, the more I think about this the less is there. A bare minimum of unpledged delegates have told the AP they’ll vote for Clinton, but won’t say it in public.
Isn’t that the key? The AP won’t even identify who these SD’s are. The ones that “decided” the race for Clinton. What kind of bullshit is that?
it was for ratings. and you fell for it.
the voters would have decided it for her as soon as the polls closed in NJ anyway, what’s the difference
So you don’t care about voter suppression? Good to know!!
what voter suppression? reporting news is now voter suppression?
ny times headline today
I was going to celebrate on Tuesday, and I still will, but this is great news. History has been made.
You seem to have a bizarre notion of ‘history’: no one has ever ‘made’ it, apart from historians.
Today we will have the first ever female presumptive nominee for a major American party. Argue semantics all you want, but that is an amazing thing, and worthy of celebration.
Yeah, the Brits beat us by a few decades, except as I recall they were celebrating when Maggie shuffled off her mortal coils.
the brits never nominated a woman to an american party running for president. your hillary hate makes you sound dumb.
Neener neener.
The most despised nominee in Democratic Party history. Now that’s something to celebrate.
The question I would like to ask the AP and the rest of our illustrious “mainstream” media- How many of your super delegates are going to vote for Hillary come convention time if she has been indicted? And if you can’t answer that question, why are you “calling” the race for her so you can dump on.. what 10 million potential California primary voters? Thumb on the scale perhaps?
Look, I’m not saying that Clinton is going to be indicted, or even that it’s likely. But certainly it is a possibility. And playing dumb to break a big “scoop” that you have counted a bunch of votes before they have actually been cast seems like they are trying so hard to tilt the whole game. Really, really pathetic in my mind, but hey, that’s the media we have- determined to assert their gatekeeper status, regardless of how biased it makes them look.
That’s an interesting hypothetical. Bernie could probably have made a case to the voters and super delegates that Hillary had potentially committed a crime and might be facing an indictment. He chose, probably for the best, not to do that.
I think there’s been enough reported on the subject of what HRC did for the super delegates to make up their minds, one way or the other. I don’t think that they are all that worried about a potential indictment at this late stage. My guess is that the Obama WH would have supported a Biden run if they felt HRC was in any real danger.
Take a look at who her super delegates are. Chances are if H. Clinton gets indicted they’ll eventually get indicted too.
But if she and the DNC can launder money through all those state Democratic Parties and AP can’t get interested in that, then we don’t have to worry about that. Money-laundering in plain sight can be ignored. The Nazis in Ukraine can be ignored. The people drowning in the Mediterranean, and the author of their deaths, can be ignored.
If Trump is elected we’ll have our own Kristalnachts. If Clinton is elected we will tippytoe up to 11:59 on the war clock.
I see no good outcome here. Maybe Booman readers can afford to wait another four or eight years to lift America out of this current dystopia.
Why not just come out and endorse Trump if you’re going to repeat right wing talking points.
I won’t vote for Trump. But you are on the Clinton Team, so you will have the burden over the next four years of having to make up excuses for her.
Nine months ago her negatives were way higher than her positives. They’ve only gotten worse. Clinton supporters ignored that. If you think that insulting Trump voters (I’m not one) or insulting Sanders supporters is going to make Hillary more popular, then go right ahead. It doesn’t seem to be working for me.
But good luck.
???
you can’t read either; what’s with the non-readers commenting on this thread/
if hillary is indicted (LOL) or has a stroke, we will nominate biden. bernie is an asshole and he wont win a thing with dems. he is toast. he can go away now.
Who’s “we”? You on someone’s payroll? I’m guessing you won’t be in the same room when decisions are made.
annainflorida
He and we ain’t going away. People like you make that impossible, your dripping disrespect is arrogant & ignorant.
There seem to be a bunch of math deniers here. Figure out how many super delegates Sanders would need to flip. It’s almost impossible to do. If I’m correct the one, singular flip so far has been from Sanders to Clinton. Sure, it would be great to have enough pledged delegates to not need super delegates, but that’s quite difficult in the Dem proportional system. AP is not controlled by the Clinton camp. Both sides would have preferred this to be “not known.” But a scoop is a scoop and the press runs with it. They have no obligation to hold it back. It’s not national security; it’s news. There’s a much a chance that people with “vote for a winner” as “stay home.” Can’t predict the outcome on an election on late-breaking news. So the argument here just makes everyone’s fingers more arthritic when there should be better issues to discuss.
What you are saying is that a majority of 714 people are selecting the “democratic” nominee for President of the United States. Sanders is making that point by seeking to flip (persuade these delegates to vote with the delegate decisions of their states–a significant issue only if Sanders improbably wins California).
In any event, those 714 votes are not in the math until the convention.
What the AP is doing is mistaking “most probable outcome” for “actual outcome”. And denying the public the opportunity to make what might be (yes, probability) a relevant decision.
This is a subtle issue of media manipulation of the election. But a lot of subtle tweaks here and there is how professional pols have denied voters their choices for quite some time. Frank Kent, The Great Game of Politics (1923) is among the classic early descriptions of how the corrupt machines the Progressive movement railed against used to do it.
These days it’s voter ID laws, last minute election law changes and court challenges (NC has primary today on Congress and legislature and judges), underallocation of voting equipment and ballots, a corrupt provisional ballot system, overstriking names similar to those of convicted felons, last minute changes in precinct locations, phony election guides with erroneous voting dates, scandalous last minute gossip, and on and on. If you push too hard you find that the math isn’t really the math.
It’s yet another reason that voters are so angry this year that they might do stupid things like voting for Trump. And just calling that a stupid thing means nothing if the Democratic Party is not willing to reform itself. That’s the reality that Clinton supporters must face if they are not to wake up to President Trump. Complacency about the general election, thinking it can be won with business as usual, is still strong in the Democratic Party.
I sense there is some pulling punches for fear of actually destroying the Republican Party and the “two-party system”. Clue to the “bipartisans”: it should be clear after the past eight years that the GOP wants to destroy Democrats existentially not metaphorically. Certainly collectively, and for those laying away guns possibly individually as well.
Don’t waste this political moment hectoring Sanders supporters.
I’m not hectoring the Sanders supporters, or at least I didn’t mean to. And your post later on points to lots of the serious issues that Sanders has railed about and had folks rally behind for months. It’s a great list (without solutions other than “revolution”). You’re an educated and informed guy. Are you ready for a REVOLUTION in government or in thinking? Because there is another party opposed to or denying the very things you (and I) think are crucial. There is a lot of convincing to do.
When there have been big swings away from the so-called middle, one side or the other keeps fighting. Like Roe. It’s an issue that just doesn’t die. But given time to make an argument, to move people bit by bit, progress can be made. I think your argument (below) is that progressivism just isn’t good enough — or that it’s bad. I respectfully disagree.
As for the superdelegate system … I actually favor it because these are people who know the candidates, have worked with them in many cases, have put in their time and effort to the party, often are representatives themselves. They are a part of the checks and balances of the party system. Look at the Republicans with their “winner take all” states. What a farce. Seventeen candidates and the one with the most votes in such a fractured field gets all the delegates. The Democratic party system is far superior. So, yes, I think my Senators and Congressman, and party chair and vice chair, and others ought to have an outsized say in the outcome of the primary. And they aren’t bucking the will of the people if they support Clinton, no matter who wins my state today. There are too many ways to calculate how they “should” vote. By CD, by State, by national vote? They are chosen for their judgment and they have judged Clinton to be the person who would make a better president — perhaps because of loyalty to the party over years and years, perhaps because of intelligence, perhaps because of experience working with her, perhaps because they want a woman as president. Whatever their reasons, that’s their choice and that’s the system everyone should recognize as “the rules” — and they have been in place long before the primaries began.
As for Bernie — he could have won. But he started late, didn’t get the support of his colleagues, made mistakes early on within the primary schedule (in particular in the south). He should have anticipated that the press would not take him seriously, that the party would see him as an interloper and not assist him. So to blame everyone else seems disingenuous when he may have no one to blame but himself, Jane, Tad Devine, and Weaver.
Yes, Bernie started too late. Someone should have challenged the claim that Clinton “was next”, “had earned it”, or was “inevitable” much earlier. As it turned out inevitability was overstated; Clinton did have to work for the nomination (which is still not, what is the proper word, formalized?)
Your case for superdelegates is that they are a vetting mechanism. The problem is that they are not an impartial vetting mechanism. And in fact, they are biased toward incumbents or only toward challengers with business credentials. The vetting problem remains because, voters have to vet endorsers prior to voting. Or if superdelegate choices are not pre-announced, risk getting blindsided by superdelegate action. Fortunately so far, superdelegates seem to understand this issue and has so far acted cautiously. Because superdelegates structurally are unpledged, they are open to being lobbied to change their minds as circumstances change during the primary season. Criticizing Sanders for lobbying them is criticizing him for using the system as it exists.
My own opinion is that an honest-to-goodness free and responsible media is the way to vet candidates. That has proven to be a difficulty when there are local, state or national media oligopolies that see news operations as profit centers. It is also difficult with government-sponsored news agencies, which tend toward government establishment views. For now, competing investigative reporters with a strong ethic of fact-checking seems the most workable way. Maybe how to vet candidates for elections in large-population jursidictions is one proposal that needs to have details to be a solution. Then parties could depend on not having to do general vetting for the public but concentrate on vetting for the party’s agenda.
The superdelegate system is politically a bit like the role of cardinals and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church; superdelegates act as the “guardians of the faith”. Their absence in the GOP caused the abrupt dropping of the religious faith in much conservative doctrine; that is one of the things that is so stunning to people. But that guardianship also turns the party into an implicitly small-c “conservative” institution, which works well normally but malfunctions in times demanding significant and rapid changes–until those guardians themselves see the need to change rapidly.
The media, the Clinton campaign, and the GOP see the word “revolution” as an almost McCarthy-period red flag. The privileged nutcases who took on the British in the 1760s, 1770s, and 1780s had a little ditty called The World Turned Upside Down that captured what revolution meant. It meant turning the world that was upside down back rightside up. For the privileged nutcases, that meant transcending the “rights of Englishmen” that they felt were being denied and instituting the rights of man, or at least the privileged nutcases types of men.
One possible view of a world turned rightside up is one in which:
12, A culture in which the call to be realistic means be realistic instead of be cynical.
Sanders’s revolution is much more modest: get the billionaires out of controlling government; the contrast with Trump is not clearer. Have the interest of the people controlling government, not the interest of the corporations.
The consequences of that revolution, in his view are:
Medicare for all
Education for all
Repairing our physical infrastructure
Transforming to a sustainable economy
Winding down wars and negotiating a global system that does not privilege militaries and warmaking–which as a practical matter allows lots of other nations to restore their infrastructures.
Not extending the global trade system in the way envisioned by the most recent treaties and in fact backing off some previous treaties that have not worked as sold.
Restoration of good-paying jobs in the US
Restoration of sensible regulation of business in the US
An equitable, progressive tax code that is simple and eliminates the tax advice, tax preparing, and tax avoidance industries — and actually begins to pay down government debt in a orderly fashion.
And a movement that persists past this election that moves toward that revolution in governance and restoring public trust.
If Hillary Clinton is truly and sincerely willing and able to lead the Democratic Party and the United States government in that political revolution and can demostrate her good faith through the way the Democratic National Convention is run, its rules, its processes, and its public presence, she is likely to get an at fist sceptical but growing support from Sanders supporters. If she is unable to change her views, her style, or unwilling to change how the convention was framed in its early planning, she loses to the extent that what she does departs from what the Sanders supporters sought as policy agenda.
As I stated in my review of her foreign policy speech, that is at the moment the weakest point for engaging Sanders supporters. The second is the silence on global climate change and her continued all-fuels stance without saying how coal miners keep working when the mountain tops are gone and all of the difficult to mine reserves are no longer profitable. What does a wasteland state do for an economy?
One is not necessarily blaming when one says that the current system is dysfunctional and does not offer all candidates the same process. Those who preserve that process because it advantages them indict themselves.
Otherwise, a rebranding of the Democratic Party might require a change of name just to be truthful about its claims. Some suggest that that the National Banker-Professional and Civil Rights Alliance Party comes closer to where the voting base lies.
Forgive my grumpiness and longwindedness. I went to vote in my second primary today (because of court cases on gerrymandering and judicial retention). Because my member of Congress and legislator are unopposed, no one will know the actual party sentiment in support or opposition to those people. Nor will they know whether his (they are both “he”) position is out-of-line with party voters. Nor will there be a minority or female alternative (as if that is prime factor in vetting, but it would provide and opportunity to diversify even with similar positions). I have voted for the member of Congress faithfully ever two years for exactly two decades. And the legislators for as long as they have appeared on the ballot. Some are getting old and need a good replacement to be the bench for some future higher office. (End of rant on need for primary opponents always.)
The race I did vote on was for a non-partisan NC Supreme Court justice. Given the Republican revolution, everyone knows that the incumbent is a Republican who sought under the new re-election through retention law to avoid opposition candidates. One candidate (nonaffiliated registration) took him to court and won (I think but the media are not good at this sort of stuff). The other two opponents are Democrats, one progressive and the other business-friendly.
The media and interest group coverage was flat-footed by the court cases. The gerrymandering one apparently is not finally and we might have a different set of maps for the general election. Or yet another primary election. I’ve had no mailing from the state or local Democrats clarifying what is going on or urging turnout.
Pray for us in the former liberal center of the South.
Tarheel, if you write this all off the top of your head, you’re very brilliant (as I’ve said before). My style is more stream of consciousness, not point by point.
I can’t comment on it all. I certainly want to say that I think super-delegates are a way of vetting. Most were known long before any primaries and could have been courted by Sanders, but weren’t.
I have no objections to primaries. What I think you’re saying, however, is that the Democratic Party has sold out to big money and you suggest a name that reflects that. I’d suggest that Sanders, an Independent, should have run on the People’s Working Democratic Socialiast Party ticket. But he didn’t. He said: “Let me use your system. I haven’t been a team player on your team, but if you let me do that now, then I’ll put out some good ideas.” And the goals are indeed inspirational.
But you know, there in NC, where gerrymandering is now under scrutiny (as you state) that the state of affairs in American politics and government makes lofty goals like the 12 you enumerate a fools errand without an armed revolution. At least that’s what I see. If the 99% storm the ramparts with success, then there will be a new constitution one day that might incorporate some of those 12. I don’t know if you want that to happen. It would be bloody, for sure, because the forces allayed against it are strong.
So what’s the alternative? Realistically? I’m of the mind that it continues to be, yes, a more conservative approach that works toward incremental change, with some prioritization of issues that might be mastered more quickly. If you can galvanize the people in one direction on a few items, it might work with some ripple effects. People (like me) might see that progress can come faster than I now believe it occurs. A leap rather than a step.
As usual, I hardly read anyone else’s posts here and so many are just rants. So I appreciate the time you took to write and I hope things turn in a more positive direction in NC, a state I really like having spent some good time there.
Funny his colleges in the US Senate would respectfully like to disagree;
To wit:
When the democratic party held the majority in the US Senate he was appointed;
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
In January 2015, Sanders became the ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee.
Both positions were appointments from the democratic party side of the US Senate.
BTW, in November 2015, Sanders announced that he would be a Democrat from then on, and will run in any future elections as a Democrat.
If the 99% storm the ramparts, successful or no, the outcome is likely to be very bad.
from the status quo.
This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Even funnier than Nader going all Grandpa Simpson saying white guys are oppressed because they can’t tell Polish jokes or stand on street corners cat-calling women without getting called on it anymore (and then claiming Twitter had government-type powers because of the 140-character limit).
No, a majority of voters in the Democratic primary chose the person they wanted to be the nominee, and the 714 people are rubberstamping that decision.
Sanders himself has said superdelegates are illegitimate, and that the voters should decide. His whole purpose in doing so was to generate pressure on them to not overturn the voters were it the case he won the pledged delegate battle. You and the rest know that as well as I do.
Virtually all of us agree with that. And, had he won the majority of pledged delegates, the SDs would’ve fallen in line with him. The solution this year is for the superdelegates to rubberstamp the will of the voters, and then after this we can debate whether it makes sense to get rid of the superdelegates. This “vote with the people of their state” stuff is just a bullshit rationalization.
The people decided. He lost. Now he’s being a hypocrite.
If the 714 superdelegates are merely rubberstamping the primary voters’s decision, they are superfluous.
But the motive was, as I understand it, “we don’t want another McGovern or Carter as a candidate”.
Not all the people have finished deciding. And realistic or not, the Sanders’s campaign apparently has high hopes for independents in the California primary.
And politically in the convention, the margin of loss of pledged delegates is important for a lot of issues other than who the nominee is. And is critical to how broad the movement of Sanders supporter to Clinton’s candidacy will be. Small margins of addiitonal Sanders’s voters will be critical in some states if the GOP succeeds against expectations in making this a close election and also important downticket if they don’t.
no thats not hwat he said and why do you sanders people constantly ignore the millions of people who voted for hillary over sanders? if the popular vote had gone to sanders the supers would have switched to bernie. but it didnt. the PEOPLE want hillary. get over it.
Might as well weigh in with my taxi ride anecdote frm yesterday in Manhattan: talked with driver, POC, mid 40’s/ 50’s I’d guess. started talking about traffic, then election. driver is Sanders supporter, but thinks the country isn’t ready for Sanders, so voting for Trump. re: Clintons, they should be in jail. So all I can say to the media leak – good luck with that. as I continue to say, outside the bubble they have no clue re: how upset ppl are with business as usual (and I mean Business)
Of course, as I’ve learned on the internet, you should have yelled at your taxi driver that you are immature, unrealistic, perhaps a sexist, perhaps a racist for not supporting Hillary.
anecdotal evidence does not trump election science. if it did i would bore you with stories about my mom and dad and who they are voting for and why. clinton will win the general because of demographics and a better organized ground campaign.
Sounds about right:
Greenwald
phuck Greenwald.
Not my favorite person either, but I don’t find anything to dispute in that paragraph.
You misspelled fuck.
The truth hurts, rick.
yes the democratic party got the candidate the PEOPLE voted for, by the millions.
Indeed. Don’t worry. I have no intention of leaving. With any luck, the mass infusion of young people such as myself will tell voters of your stripe and your terrible candidates “where else are you going to go?” soon enough. Get used to being in coalition with a lot of young leftists.
I’m afraid I don’t see much bump for the Democratic Party from the Sanders influx. He was running against the neoliberals who control the party, and I think the neos would rather lose than move any farther to the left.
Maybe the DNC will do a 180 and start backing progressives and back away from Wall Street money. And will stop waging war around the world.
Oh I don’t expect them to be a worker’s party. I don’t expect them to be an anti-capitalist party. Certainly not within the next decade, if ever. But there are moves that I see they’re moving left, particularly Obama and Clinton being in favor of SS expansion. Let’s wait for some action, though. Obama has appointed trustees who favor privatization.
Foreign policy, it’s possible the party is a dead end, but that’s mostly a problem with the electorate. No one is going to be anti-war enough for me, but I can settle for Obama style (for the time being). It’s not like Sanders has come out against the assassination list, the drone war, the war on terror, etc.
Let’s “adjust” to reality.
And the Democrats preaching that the voters should deal with reality of GOP dominance in Congress are asserting that because their preferred policy is incrementalism.
It is no wonder why voters looking at the two parties are deranged, angry, in a blue funk, or dropping out and starting to prepare for the collapse to come.
How the heck do we puncture the establishment bubble that they have it all “well in hand”. The Imperial Nomenklatura has no clothes. Those aspiring to positions in it should at least notice that.
you sanders people should have showed up to vote in the mid terms so we would not have a republican dominated congress. thanks for nothing.
anna, what are you talking about? I’ve voted in every election since 1972. I’ll vote in November too, I just won’t vote for the Wall Street candidate.
Perhaps, though, you are talking about all those newly registered Sanders voters. They weren’t old enough for the last mid-terms, and running candidates the quality that Debbie Wasserman Schultz chooses and Clinton blesses will convince them that there’s no point in voting in 2018.
But blame Sanders supporters for not voting for the second-most despised presidential candidate in recorded history.
anna, when you are capable of at least repeating the criticisms voiced against your candidate, then maybe we can have a dialogue. If you can’t even see why progressives don’t trust Clinton you won’t convince anyone to come over to your candidate. Quite the opposite.
they can’t talk about the flaws b/c that’s all there is.
I voted in the midterms, straight Democratic ticket. My New Democrat Congressman won. My new Democrat Senator Hagen lost. My legislators won, not that it did any good for all the former Blue Dog districts that liked real Republicans. My county commission and school board candidates won.
You can stop hanging the losses in 2010 and 2014 on Sanders voters because in most places, they did show up. That’s why we’re so angry about the party establishment now. Taking us for granted and telling lies about why they lost.
Interesting, no? A double-bladed sword, our base.
Nearly one-third of women-of-color voters who participated in the 2012 presidential election–30.3 percent–are expected to sit out the 2014 midterm elections. That translates into a staggering 5.9 million eligible voters who may stay home.
https:/www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2014/10/30/99962/women-of-color
In 2010…
unmarried women about 2 percent less (~10M voters)
non-white voters 4-5 percentage dropoff
young voters 7 percentage points
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/democrats-midterm-demographic-problem/)
How many of those were pouting progressives? lol
Clinton is the nominee. It’s not complicated. There is no scenario where Bernie gets it, unless Clinton gets sick or something. Everything else is just noise.
That said, the idea that Bernie has been hurting Hillary by not conceding (something some Clinton surrogates have been saying), seems pretty ludicrous to me. Moreover, it’s not clear how saying that helps Clinton. Seems the Clinton campaign is doing just fine taking shots at Trump.
Finally, Trump will continue to generate outrage and offend people. The current issue with the judge is not some kind of one-time opportunity to “take-down” Trump, which, because of the nature of the news cycle, wouldn’t happen anyway. We’ve got many long summer months of nonsense still to come from Trump. He can’t help himself. The Dem party sniping about Bernie is a trifling skirmish compared to the massive super-hot nuclear melt-down of the GOP right now.
I kind of wish Bernie supporters would channel their energy into more productive outlets. Find something that you can do other than get the nomination for Bernie, which is already gone.
blindtrust, if working to get your candidate elected isn’t worthwhile, then why have the elite backed Clinton with all their money?
You’d rather Sanders supporters work on their victory garden for the next war Clinton leads us into? Okay. I sure as hell am not moving a muscle to get her elected.
I mean, if you’re actually working in his campaign, how could I judge that? But getting mad online about how the campaign is working out is kind of a waste of time.
Gloating online over a bunch of Democratic insiders telling that the AP that they’ll support the biggest insider isn’t a particularly good use of your time either. But I’m retired, so I’ve got lots of time on my hands. What’s your excuse?
It’s not about the AP, it’s about the votes. Hillary has many more of them.
Are you switching topics or are you ignoring what makes a super delegate?
good thing we didnt need you.
Yeah. Good thing you won’t need us.
Yet, day in and day out you’ve posted almost exclusively on the 2016 presidential election. One can’t forget when one engages in daily reminders of it.
Does this premature announcement by AP mean that Hillary’s people were worried that she was going to lose California?
It’s so heavy-handed, using super delegates to clinch the nomination before the six primaries today.
In any case, cutting off the voters of those states by one day before they vote suggests that Clinton’s own numbers aren’t that good. Declaring victory before the victory offends those still interested in the process.
Considering that Trump is even with Clinton in a lot of polls, crapping on the people she’ll need in the Fall is not particularly good strategy, but maybe the polls for today are looking really bad for Clinton, so, as they said in roller derby, she needs to call off the jam.
It doesn’t make sense that this is coordinated, or that Clinton is worried about CA. The nomination race will be called after NJ closes, which does not project to be close. CA is not going to move needle one way or another.
Which is what I thought when I heard the announcement last night. So it’s either tone-deaf, unwanted help from her allies in the media, or trying to deny any meaning to the primaries today.
Yeah, it couldn’t be that the numbers added up and the AP was the first to notice. It has to be bad Hillary stuff.
All the evil in the world is lined up against Bernie da God.
Final forecast from 538.com gives Clinton close to a 90% chance of winning in California. As always, this is based on aggregating polls and weighting them by their relative merits.
We’ll find out in a few hours. 538 has had a mixed track record this time around.
LOL!! How did that work out in Michigan? 538 have disgraced themselves through this whole campaign. Remember this:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywh
ere-else/
How has that held up? Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
jeez you sound like rove and the teabaggers the night rommney was beating obama. except he wasnt.
anna, your candidate will most likely win. You can’t make anyone like her. You seem incapable of addressing any of the multitude of criticisms directed against her. So just be happy that your icon won. Insulting her critics doesn’t convince anyone of anything about Hillary. It just convinces us as to your rather rigid belief system.
also too, you sound desperate
no they dont have a mixed record. they missed 2 races this year. that makes them extremely accurate.
makes their record . . . wait for it! . . . “mixed”!
See how that works?
If there are ten races, and Hillary is given a 90% chance of winning in each, you don’t expect her to win all 10. You expect her to win 9. The fact that she loses a given race where she had a 90% chance is surprising on its own, but given those parameters across ten races, losing one is expected.
Similarly, as anybody who bets on sports will tell you, when you look at (say) a college football schedule and bet on the over/under for wins, you don’t go down the list and mark off, “Win, win, win, loss, win, win, loss, loss, win, win, win, win — okay, I think they’ll go 9-3.” That’s how your stupid neighbor who takes Ohio State or Bama to go undefeated every year loses his money when they inevitably drop a game to Nebraska or Ole Miss during a stretch of tough matchups.
No. You assign each matchup a probability of victory and add them up, giving you a win-share and bet accordingly. “I think they’ll win 10.36 games.” Then you bet accordingly.
no. dont be so stupid.
But then he wouldn’t post at all.
Has anyone seen this reported anywhere in the MSM?
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/06/puerto-rico-democratic-party-reduced.html
Only a third of the voting locations open, the necessity for voters to go to two voting places to vote in both the local and presidential primaries?
In the spring it was estimated that 700,000 would vote in the Puerto Rico primary. Now it seems the turnout out was 60,000, 8% of the estimated turnout.
Well-played, Democratic Party! Voter suppression for all!
the reports I saw was the Sanders campaign requested the fewer polling locations because they couldn’t staff all of them, probably saved them from a bigger blowout down there
Within the link was Sanders’ refutation of that canard. And who was the brilliant party member who decided that the voters of Puerto Rico needed to go to two different polling places?
Here is the Sanders statement:
Sanders Campaign Statement on Puerto Rico Polling Places
June 5, 2016
SAN DIEGO – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign issued the following statement Sunday on long lines at polling places in Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party presidential primary election:
“Some Puerto Rico Democratic officials are claiming that the Sanders campaign requested fewer polling places in today’s primary contest. That’s completely false. The opposite is true. In emails with the party, Sanders’ staff asked the party to maintain the 1,500 plus presidential primary locations promised by the Puerto Rico Democratic party in testimony before the DNC in April, when the party was asking to have its caucus changed to a primary. They cannot blame their shoddy running of the primary on our campaign. This is just one example of irregularities going on in Puerto Rico voting today. We are the campaign that has been fighting to increase voter participation.”
okay, so I was wrong then I must have misread what I saw
No, you weren’t wrong. Hillary truth protectors circulated the story so that they could blame the lack of polls on Sanders. Which is another reason why I can’t seem to develop any trust for her.
truth protectors, very nice
When I hear HRC supporters crying about voter suppression from Repubs, I’m going to remind them of the 2016 Dem primary.
yes!
The Green place has morphed into the Orange place!
Hillary’s stolen 4 of 5 states so far tonight. Only in North Dakota were the people allowed to vote.
So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause, and superdelegates.”
Liberty dies whenever Bernie loses, obv. Ever notice that no one ever had any liberty before Bernie?
I heard on the news that the Statue of Liberty is weeping tears of blood tonight.
.
To quote from the “Song Remains The Same” live version of the song posted upthread:
“Does anybody remember laughter?”
It’s hard to laugh when daddy refused to buy you that pony 40 years ago.
.