Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is phenomenally stupid. The press has been engaging in a months-long fiction that there is still a real race for the Democratic nomination going on.

There is zero chance, even if Bernie has a shockingly lopsided win in California, that he will be anywhere close to Clinton in pledged delegates. So the article's theory depends on the superdelegates, who overwhelmingly support Clinton, deciding en masse to overturn the will of the voters.

Look at it this way: Imagine that the Republicans had superdelegates and Bush or Rubio had been leading in delegates heading into California, and then Trump pulled off a big win in California. Does anyone think the Republican superdelegates would, en masse, abandon Bush or Rubio to join the Trump train? That is essentially what the Wall Street Journal is imagining would happen on the Democratic side. It is nonsense.

This would be true had the superdelegates waited until the will of the voters was known before declaring their support. But no, many of them declared their support for Clinton before any voting occurred let alone voting within their own state/districts.

It’s the Democratic way!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is phenomenally stupid. The press has been engaging in a months-long fiction that there is still a real race for the Democratic nomination going on.

There is zero chance, even if Bernie has a shockingly lopsided win in California, that he will be anywhere close to Clinton in pledged delegates. So the article's theory depends on the superdelegates, who overwhelmingly support Clinton, deciding en masse to overturn the will of the voters.

Look at it this way: Imagine that the Republicans had superdelegates and Bush or Rubio had been leading in delegates heading into California, and then Trump pulled off a big win in California. Does anyone think the Republican superdelegates would, en masse, abandon Bush or Rubio to join the Trump train? That is essentially what the Wall Street Journal is imagining would happen on the Democratic side. It is nonsense.

This would be true had the superdelegates waited until the will of the voters was known before declaring their support. But no, many of them declared their support for Clinton before any voting occurred let alone voting within their own state/districts.

It’s the Democratic way!!!

Superdelegates are the Democratic way - just ask Tad Devine who helped set up that system in the first place. But more importantly, having way more pledged delegates and way more actual votes is the democratic way - note the little "d."

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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/

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

Sorry for yelling.

USE A DICTIONARY AND SMALL CAPS BEFORE YOU POST

[Anonymous]

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'm not claiming Sanders is wrong to do so -- though he has made two conflicting arguments. One day he says they should follow the will of the people, the next he says they shouldn't. Devine says they should; Weaver says they shouldn't. And they put out those conflicting messages on the same day.

What I *am* saying is that superdelegates are not going to switch from Hillary to Bernie. Even in 2008, relatively few jumped from Clinton to Obama, and those who did were doing it to support the leader in pledged delegates. So it's more likely that superdelegates will go from Sanders to Clinton. The undeclared superdelegates will start declaring on Wednesday. Some, like Jerry Brown, did it this week.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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

I feel confident that the Wall Street Journal knows the difference, and not because some moron provides the dictionary.com definition. Jesus, people.

What are you talking about? Yes, this ARTICLE appeared in the OPINION section. Why do you think written compositions published in the opinion section are no longer "articles?"

[Anonymous]

How many millions more votes does Hillary have than Bernie?

Remember, this is a race for the Democratic nomination. Bernie's not a Democrat. But I will give him points for chutzpah.

[Anonymous]

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.

What is unreasonable is for anyone in the world to think Bernie is actually going to convince a meaningful number superdelgates who prefer Clinton to abandon her when she is the popular vote leader and the pledged delegate leader. He is free to do whatever he wants. Writing an opinion piece suggesting he has any chance in hell at succeeding is the idiotic part.

[Anonymous]

"I know you have consistently stated that you prefer Clinton to me, but here me out: Why don't you vote against your own stated interest in order to disenfranchise all the voters who agree with you?" Brilliant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I know you have consistently stated that you prefer Clinton to me, but here me out: Why don't you vote against your own stated interest in order to disenfranchise all the voters who agree with you?" Brilliant.

Well when you consider HRC only has about 4% more pledged delegates than Sanders, the Sanders camp would only need to persuade 4.1% of the superdelegates to vote against their constituents. Not unheard of when you consider they routinely do this on other issues that go against the majority.

[Anonymous]

As much as I might wish this were true, I wouldn't take anything the WSJ says all that serious. They are after all owned by the same people as Faux News.