Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#FeelTheMath

I anticipate that this will come back to haunt Hillary supporters when they feel the math of their candidate losing.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is actually not what the opinion article said (see what I did there?). It said that if Clinton loses in California while polling between her and Trump also tightens, it might flip superdelegates...it also mentioned the impact of the legal issues related to the server on whether superdelegates continue to see her as suitable, but that was secondary.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is actually not what the opinion article said (see what I did there?). It said that if Clinton loses in California while polling between her and Trump also tightens, it might flip superdelegates...it also mentioned the impact of the legal issues related to the server on whether superdelegates continue to see her as suitable, but that was secondary.

The article ignores that the purpose of the superdelegates is to tip the scales toward the establishment candidate. They were created to keep someone like Bernie out, even if he did win the most pledged delegates.

[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.

This is actually not what the opinion article said (see what I did there?). It said that if Clinton loses in California while polling between her and Trump also tightens, it might flip superdelegates...it also mentioned the impact of the legal issues related to the server on whether superdelegates continue to see her as suitable, but that was secondary.

The article ignores that the purpose of the superdelegates is to tip the scales toward the establishment candidate. They were created to keep someone like Bernie out, even if he did win the most pledged delegates.

But he didn't. And the superdelegates have never actually done that.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is actually not what the opinion article said (see what I did there?). It said that if Clinton loses in California while polling between her and Trump also tightens, it might flip superdelegates...it also mentioned the impact of the legal issues related to the server on whether superdelegates continue to see her as suitable, but that was secondary.

After this week, I don't think the Clinton-Trump polls will be tightening for much longer.

[Anonymous]

I thought the point of Superdelegates is to prevent unelectable Socislists from hijacking the Democratic Party.

[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.

This is actually not what the opinion article said (see what I did there?). It said that if Clinton loses in California while polling between her and Trump also tightens, it might flip superdelegates...it also mentioned the impact of the legal issues related to the server on whether superdelegates continue to see her as suitable, but that was secondary.

After this week, I don't think the Clinton-Trump polls will be tightening for much longer.

The new Reuters poll shows HRC up 11 points, but polls aren't very meaningful right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#FeelTheMath

I anticipate that this will come back to haunt Hillary supporters when they feel the math of their candidate losing.

There is no plausible scenario in which that happens. Bernie will not win 107% of all outstanding delegates.

[Anonymous]

Tom Brokaw agrees that Sanders could win if he wins CA.

http://politicsbreaking.com/tom-brokaw-bernie-sanders-can-win-nomination-wins-california/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't you guys find a more interesting argument than the definition of "article?"

So the argument that Bernie can still win the nomination is more interesting? No, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tom Brokaw agrees that Sanders could win if he wins CA.

http://politicsbreaking.com/tom-brokaw-bernie-sanders-can-win-nomination-wins-california/

Don't you feel a little awkward posting about something Brokaw told a Breitbart audience? Brokaw's statement here was an extended riff on his own feelings. It was a little light on facts. That's OK, but you should probably acknowledge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tom Brokaw agrees that Sanders could win if he wins CA.

http://politicsbreaking.com/tom-brokaw-bernie-sanders-can-win-nomination-wins-california/

Don't you feel a little awkward posting about something Brokaw told a Breitbart audience? Brokaw's statement here was an extended riff on his own feelings. It was a little light on facts. That's OK, but you should probably acknowledge it.

I always wonder about people like you who seemingly live their lives only to be nasty on the internet. Do you ever just feel ashamed of yourself and wonder what kind of person you are? My feelings are not hurt. I just find internet trolls fascinating. Beside the point...

I don't feel awkward posting this because Brokaw is an intelligent man who shares the opinion that there is a possibility that Sanders could win the nomination. I am not saying that I believe he will win. I am posting this because it is an interesting perspective.

[Anonymous]

Here is the truth about the "3 million vote" lead that Hillary claims to have over Sanders.

http://nbcpolitics.org/hillary-is-not-ahead-by-3-million-votes-and-thats-just-math/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the truth about the "3 million vote" lead that Hillary claims to have over Sanders.

http://nbcpolitics.org/hillary-is-not-ahead-by-3-million-votes-and-thats-just-math/

She does have a 3 million vote lead 13.26 million to 10.225 million in votes cast. The objection from the Sanders side is that doesn't count the caucuses, most of which were won by Sanders or were evenly split. But the larger point about the caucuses is that Sanders has an advantage in turning out activists in caucuses but does much worse when he has to appeal to large numbers of primary voters. If those caucus states had all had primaries, Clinton would have won more delegates and the whole thing would be over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the truth about the "3 million vote" lead that Hillary claims to have over Sanders.

http://nbcpolitics.org/hillary-is-not-ahead-by-3-million-votes-and-thats-just-math/

It's ironic, because the piece cites WA state as one where Sanders's vote is undercounted...but WA has held a primary since its caucus, and Clinton won it.