Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I just consider people who are unnecessarily rude and confrontational on the internet to be trolls even if they are expressing a valid point. If the shoe fits...

I have interest in making a case for Sanders as a candidate but I do not have any reason to believe he has a chance of winning the nomination. I do find it interesting that some people think he might have a chance if he wins CA. I had assumed he had no chance at all. So I posted this thread to see what people think of it. Mostly all I have gotten is a lot of Clinton supporters being rude and taking issue with the word "article." Don't know what that's about.

It's about you and other Sanders supporters starting new threads every day pretending that you are posting something new when it the same bullshit you have been posting for the past month about the fantasy of superdelegates switching sides to your losing candidate.



I have not posted a thread in months. I am sure it is annoying to you that there are Sanders supporters who want to see a glimmer of hope but there is no reason to assume I have posted other threads. I find it interesting that he might still have a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I have not posted a thread in months. I am sure it is annoying to you that there are Sanders supporters who want to see a glimmer of hope but there is no reason to assume I have posted other threads. I find it interesting that he might still have a chance.

Different poster here. It seems more like you (and Bernie himself) are grasping at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THIS IS NOT AN "ARTICLE." It is one guy's OPINION.

Sorry for yelling.

Excuse me but I feel compelled to help you understand what "article" means:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/article

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I just consider people who are unnecessarily rude and confrontational on the internet to be trolls even if they are expressing a valid point. If the shoe fits...

I have interest in making a case for Sanders as a candidate but I do not have any reason to believe he has a chance of winning the nomination. I do find it interesting that some people think he might have a chance if he wins CA. I had assumed he had no chance at all. So I posted this thread to see what people think of it. Mostly all I have gotten is a lot of Clinton supporters being rude and taking issue with the word "article." Don't know what that's about.

It's about you and other Sanders supporters starting new threads every day pretending that you are posting something new when it the same bullshit you have been posting for the past month about the fantasy of superdelegates switching sides to your losing candidate.

I have not posted a thread in months. I am sure it is annoying to you that there are Sanders supporters who want to see a glimmer of hope but there is no reason to assume I have posted other threads. I find it interesting that he might still have a chance.

The only chance he has is if there is an indictment or some other catastrophic event. Winning California won't matter, and having Bernie supporters use winning California as a reason he might still have a chance is offensive to Clinton supporters because it's suggesting disregarding the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Bernie supporters appear to be very willing to disregard how the majority of voters casted their votes. One of many reasons why super delegates won't overturn the votes of the majority is that it would be a sure way to lose the general election. While there might be some Bernie supporters who feel the nomination is being stolen from Bernie, if the super delegates overturned the popular vote, Hillary supporters will KNOW the nomination is being stolen, and a much larger segment of democrats will be feel disenfranchised by the party. That is a guaranteed loss in the general election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THIS IS NOT AN "ARTICLE." It is one guy's OPINION.

Sorry for yelling.

Excuse me but I feel compelled to help you understand what "article" means:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/article

Thank you.

It is an op-ed article, not a news article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author is a former pollster for Bill Clinton who is now on the outside looking in. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Bernie can narrowly win California and the state's delegate split would still be about even. He's not going to win NJ, or PR or USVI this weekend, or DC. Superdelegates are breaking for HRC at this point, not the other way around.

But if they actually followed the will of the voters not near as many would be pledged for Clinton. Clinton currently only has about 54% of pledged delegates that have already been voted for. Yet she has 92% of the superdelegates.

I'm not going to argue with you, or even point out that superdelegates are not required to follow the voters' will -- and in fact, Sanders is now arguing that they should NOT do that. He wants the superdelegates to do the opposite. I will just refer you to extensive analyses by FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Exactly, superdelegates do not follow the will of the voters. So there is no logical reason to not expect Sanders or any primary candidate not to try to win them over. There's also no logical reason to claim it's unreasonable for any primary candidate not to do so. So any HRC supporter claiming otherwise is speaking with a forked tongue.

I don't know any Clinton supporters speaking in the abstract about Sanders's claim that he wants to flip superdelegates. When Sanders was doing well earlier in the primaries, he himself claimed that the superdelegates mean the system is rigged and they should vote in accordance with the primary/caucus outcome in their state. At this point, that won't be sufficient to win him the nomination, so at least some superdelegates will have to vote against the winner of their state to make Sanders the nominee. That is why the superdelegates exist, so in a vacuum it's a reasonable thing to say. The hypocrisy is that until recently Sanders claimed that superdelegates should not be allowed to overturn the will of the voters.

Agreed. One other thing to add to this: Why is there an assumption that superdelegates should be awarded state by state on a winner-take-all basis when pledged delegates are awarded proportionally? That doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author is a former pollster for Bill Clinton who is now on the outside looking in. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Bernie can narrowly win California and the state's delegate split would still be about even. He's not going to win NJ, or PR or USVI this weekend, or DC. Superdelegates are breaking for HRC at this point, not the other way around.

But if they actually followed the will of the voters not near as many would be pledged for Clinton. Clinton currently only has about 54% of pledged delegates that have already been voted for. Yet she has 92% of the superdelegates.

I'm not going to argue with you, or even point out that superdelegates are not required to follow the voters' will -- and in fact, Sanders is now arguing that they should NOT do that. He wants the superdelegates to do the opposite. I will just refer you to extensive analyses by FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Exactly, superdelegates do not follow the will of the voters. So there is no logical reason to not expect Sanders or any primary candidate not to try to win them over. There's also no logical reason to claim it's unreasonable for any primary candidate not to do so. So any HRC supporter claiming otherwise is speaking with a forked tongue.

I don't know any Clinton supporters speaking in the abstract about Sanders's claim that he wants to flip superdelegates. When Sanders was doing well earlier in the primaries, he himself claimed that the superdelegates mean the system is rigged and they should vote in accordance with the primary/caucus outcome in their state. At this point, that won't be sufficient to win him the nomination, so at least some superdelegates will have to vote against the winner of their state to make Sanders the nominee. That is why the superdelegates exist, so in a vacuum it's a reasonable thing to say. The hypocrisy is that until recently Sanders claimed that superdelegates should not be allowed to overturn the will of the voters.

Agreed. One other thing to add to this: Why is there an assumption that superdelegates should be awarded state by state on a winner-take-all basis when pledged delegates are awarded proportionally? That doesn't make sense.

Agree, that argument irks me. If super delegates were compelled to vote for the same person as the pledged delegates from their state, there would be no reason for them to exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Bernie supporter and I think the whole case for Hillary to not win the nomination rests on Hillary's email server investigation and a loss in California. An indictment or continued damaging news from the case could sink her.

I agree that some Bernie supporters might be a little too optimistic about all this, but to dismiss it out of hand is naive. Every new piece if information that comes out is negative.

That is pretty much what the article says and I agree though it is a long shot.

If the primary went another two months she would not win. It's just a shame the primary system gave her suck a big lead.

No, the caucus system overly favored Bernie. Just look at what happened in Washington State. Clinton lost big in the caucuses but won the primary.

.

Right. And don't forget Nebraska. Same result.

[Anonymous]

Do people actually take Murdoch publications seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people actually take Murdoch publications seriously?

The actual news in the WSJ is still worth taking seriously, despite Murdoch's effort thus far. The opinion pieces are not.