Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

[Anonymous]

Call them what they are and you know the POV of the author:
Article
Editorial
Column
Op-Ed
Satire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are a lot of things wrong with this math, but let me just point out one glaring one: There are not as many superdelegates as there are pledged delegates. 4% of a large number is bigger than 4.1% of a small number.

Yea, that's some funny math right there. Bernie would have to get at least 75% of superdelegates to win.

Here is the thing about super delegates: They are Democratic elected officials and party leaders who all know Hillary Clinton and many of them know Bernie Sanders. They didn't make their endorsements based on Facebook likes or Twitter followers.

[Anonymous]

If they were going to indict her, they would have already. Do you really think Obama will let her be indicted?

If you want an indictment, you know who to vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call them what they are and you know the POV of the author:
Article
Editorial
Column
Op-Ed
Satire

So what exactly do you consider to be an "article?" As opposed to the others which are all self explanatory. In my opinion the others are all types of articles.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Unfortunately, I could not get the article to come up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it pointed out that after Tuesday HRC and BS will each have enough votes so that it is mathematically impossible for either to win without superdelegates. That means that if something happens to make Hillary an untenable candidate, an indictment, for example, it is within the convention rules for the superdelegates to vote against her, either giving Sanders the nomination if enough vote for him, or going to a second ballot if they vote for someone else. Once past the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote as they wish, for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Klobuchar, ...

I don't claim this is at all likely as a scenario, just that it is an option for the party if the need arises -- an option that the GOP does not have.

Your analysis would be logical, but that's not what the piece said. It said that if Clinton loses at all in California, it might confirm to some superdelegates that she is a bad nominee (plus the email server stuff). It doesn't necessarily say they will choose Sanders, it actually suggests Kerry or Biden might swoop in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Unfortunately, I could not get the article to come up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it pointed out that after Tuesday HRC and BS will each have enough votes so that it is mathematically impossible for either to win without superdelegates. That means that if something happens to make Hillary an untenable candidate, an indictment, for example, it is within the convention rules for the superdelegates to vote against her, either giving Sanders the nomination if enough vote for him, or going to a second ballot if they vote for someone else. Once past the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote as they wish, for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Klobuchar, ...

I don't claim this is at all likely as a scenario, just that it is an option for the party if the need arises -- an option that the GOP does not have.

Your analysis would be logical, but that's not what the piece said. It said that if Clinton loses at all in California, it might confirm to some superdelegates that she is a bad nominee (plus the email server stuff). It doesn't necessarily say they will choose Sanders, it actually suggests Kerry or Biden might swoop in.

I do not understand why certain part of the media is still trying push the idea that some other candidate will be nominee. At this time it is 90% sure that Clinton is the presumptive nominee and after Tuesday it would be 100% sure. Presumptive means that she would be the official during the convention, but it is equivalent to Trump being the presumptive republican nominee. I do not understand how we are still arguing about it.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Unfortunately, I could not get the article to come up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it pointed out that after Tuesday HRC and BS will each have enough votes so that it is mathematically impossible for either to win without superdelegates. That means that if something happens to make Hillary an untenable candidate, an indictment, for example, it is within the convention rules for the superdelegates to vote against her, either giving Sanders the nomination if enough vote for him, or going to a second ballot if they vote for someone else. Once past the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote as they wish, for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Klobuchar, ...

I don't claim this is at all likely as a scenario, just that it is an option for the party if the need arises -- an option that the GOP does not have.

Hello, Susan Sarandon! Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted.

I'm not sure I follow your math. HRC is less than 70 delegates away from clinching the nomination. Most modern Democratic candidates have clinched through superdelegates: Obama is the most recent example. I'm sure Bernie will have a good day Tuesday. But it's worth pointing out that the three states he will assuredly win (MT, ND and SD) have fewer delegates than Puerto Rico, which votes Saturday. Since Bernie is not going to win CA or NJ by 30 points, I think he's not going to close the gap by much. Tuesday, she will become the presumptive nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to indict her, they would have already. Do you really think Obama will let her be indicted?

If you want an indictment, you know who to vote for.

Always interesting to see people admitting that she should be indicted and yet, she will not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Unfortunately, I could not get the article to come up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it pointed out that after Tuesday HRC and BS will each have enough votes so that it is mathematically impossible for either to win without superdelegates. That means that if something happens to make Hillary an untenable candidate, an indictment, for example, it is within the convention rules for the superdelegates to vote against her, either giving Sanders the nomination if enough vote for him, or going to a second ballot if they vote for someone else. Once past the first ballot, all delegates are free to vote as they wish, for Sanders, O'Malley, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Klobuchar, ...

I don't claim this is at all likely as a scenario, just that it is an option for the party if the need arises -- an option that the GOP does not have.

Your analysis would be logical, but that's not what the piece said. It said that if Clinton loses at all in California, it might confirm to some superdelegates that she is a bad nominee (plus the email server stuff). It doesn't necessarily say they will choose Sanders, it actually suggests Kerry or Biden might swoop in.

I do not understand why certain part of the media is still trying push the idea that some other candidate will be nominee. At this time it is 90% sure that Clinton is the presumptive nominee and after Tuesday it would be 100% sure. Presumptive means that she would be the official during the convention, but it is equivalent to Trump being the presumptive republican nominee. I do not understand how we are still arguing about it.

It's not even "the media" writing the story, in this case. It's a former Bill Clinton pollster who might have an angle of his own. The media are happy to publish it, because clicks = money. So that's the answer. Revenue.

[Anonymous]

The author (DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN), hasn't been right about anything in over twenty years, and now eeks out a living writing articles painting Democrats in a bad light for conservative news organs like Fox and the WSJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call them what they are and you know the POV of the author:
Article
Editorial
Column
Op-Ed
Satire

So what exactly do you consider to be an "article?" As opposed to the others which are all self explanatory. In my opinion the others are all types of articles.

I never call an opinion piece an article. I use article to refer to a news story that presents the facts and identifies the source of any opinion or commentary that is quoted or cited in the article.
An op-ed is definitely not a WSJ, WP, NYT [insert newspaper name] article.
As for the Wall Street Journal, the reporters are actually quite good and often expose things in articles that the WSJ editorial board and columnists later deny and ridicule. The editorial page is complete garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to indict her, they would have already. Do you really think Obama will let her be indicted?

If you want an indictment, you know who to vote for.

Always interesting to see people admitting that she should be indicted and yet, she will not.

I did not admit that she should be indicted. I just provided the one reason that a Trump or Bernie supporter would understand. There are real reasons she shouldn't be indicted, but that's for a different thread.

[Anonymous]

I just think it is kind of funny to watch the Democrats discuss a possible contested convention.
Oh, my, how things can change in a couple months!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call them what they are and you know the POV of the author:
Article
Editorial
Column
Op-Ed
Satire

So what exactly do you consider to be an "article?" As opposed to the others which are all self explanatory. In my opinion the others are all types of articles.

I never call an opinion piece an article. I use article to refer to a news story that presents the facts and identifies the source of any opinion or commentary that is quoted or cited in the article.
An op-ed is definitely not a WSJ, WP, NYT [insert newspaper name] article.
As for the Wall Street Journal, the reporters are actually quite good and often expose things in articles that the WSJ editorial board and columnists later deny and ridicule. The editorial page is complete garbage.

I was actually asking what sets an "article" apart from the other types of... umm ... articles, in your book. I think you might be somewhere on the spectrum. I am not saying this to insult you but because this is a very strange thing to take issue with and it is not following the dictionary definition of "article." If you are not on the spectrum, then you are simply obsessed with being right even when you are clearly wrong and even when no one knows who you are.

Anyway, you do not agree with the author's opinions and that is a legitimate statement to make on this thread.

[Anonymous]

If you can't tell the difference between a news article and and op-ed, you must watch too much Fox News.