Wall Street Journal article says Clinton might not be the nominee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

[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/

Click bait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

[Anonymous]

Ok, let me get this straight. After CNN announces that Clinton has clinched the nomination on Tuesday at 830pm EST or so...the super delegates might change their minds the next morning?

Cool story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

Trolling aside, Brokaw didn't say Sanders had a chance, he said he was just playing around with ideas.

Brokaw wrote:
MY FAVORITE THEORY OF POLITICS, EVERY CYCLE, IS WHAT I CALL THE UFO THEORY — THE UNFORESEEN WILL OCCUR. I NEVER GET INVOLVED IN WHO’S GOING TO WIN AND WHO’S GOING TO LOSE AT THE BEGINNING OR EVEN MIDWAY THROUGH, BUT WHAT I TRY TO DO IS DESCRIBE THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN AND WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE HERE.

No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

I'm sorry, but if you think this qualifies as "bizarre behavior by Internet trolls," you don't necessarily understand what trolling is. I suppose next you will get angry when I point out that Brokaw is no longer a member of the media. He is now flacking a book. All press is good press, I suppose. Hence the Breitbart appearance.

If you have no interest in making a case for Sanders, then I honestly don't understand what's so offensive to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let me get this straight. After CNN announces that Clinton has clinched the nomination on Tuesday at 830pm EST or so...the super delegates might change their minds the next morning?

Cool story.

The super delegates aren't switching to Sanders. They are state level party leaders who have contributed lots of time and energy and effort to the party at that level. The Clintons have campaigned for candidates at the state level. They have fundraised for them. They have listened to them on the issues. They have a relationship with the party at the state and local level. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat until a couple of years ago. He doesn't haven't that kind of deep relationship with the party at that level. The state level leaders have no reason to trust this guy and lots of reasons to trust the Clinton machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

I'm sorry, but if you think this qualifies as "bizarre behavior by Internet trolls," you don't necessarily understand what trolling is. I suppose next you will get angry when I point out that Brokaw is no longer a member of the media. He is now flacking a book. All press is good press, I suppose. Hence the Breitbart appearance.

If you have no interest in making a case for Sanders, then I honestly don't understand what's so offensive to you.

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.

[Anonymous]

Because the Clintons are so trustworthy.

Signed, lifelong democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

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.


No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

I'm sorry, but if you think this qualifies as "bizarre behavior by Internet trolls," you don't necessarily understand what trolling is. I suppose next you will get angry when I point out that Brokaw is no longer a member of the media. He is now flacking a book. All press is good press, I suppose. Hence the Breitbart appearance.

If you have no interest in making a case for Sanders, then I honestly don't understand what's so offensive to you.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently there is still hope for Bernie if he wins California. There is also the possibility of a new candidate emerging such as Biden or Kerry.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

Bernie will get CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's trolling to point out that Brokaw was saying this to a Breitbart audience? Or to point out that his opinion seemed devoid of fact? If you want to make a case for Sanders getting 107% of all outstanding delegates, go ahead. Explain how it's going to happen. I'm all ears.

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.


No. It is trolling to be rude for no particular reason during an internet discussion about politics. Seriously, all I did was post a link to Brokaw saying that Sanders has a chance. I honestly do not even care. I just wonder how people like you justify your behavior and feel good about yourselves. It is something to think about. And yes, of course you are a troll.

I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I am interested in what the media is saying about this. And I stop occasionally to get fascinated by the bizarre behavior of internet trolls.

I'm sorry, but if you think this qualifies as "bizarre behavior by Internet trolls," you don't necessarily understand what trolling is. I suppose next you will get angry when I point out that Brokaw is no longer a member of the media. He is now flacking a book. All press is good press, I suppose. Hence the Breitbart appearance.

If you have no interest in making a case for Sanders, then I honestly don't understand what's so offensive to you.

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.

When the title says "Wall Street Journal Article says Clinton might not be nominee," it sounds like there is a substantive/fact based/credible article in the Wall Street Journal that, after analysis, reached that conclusion. At least that's what I thought when I read the title. I'm not one of the people who wrote above about article vs. opinion piece, and I wouldn't have said anything about it, but you said you didn't know what it's about, so I'm giving my opinion. It's like if someone said, "Article in Wall Street Journal about new break through cancer cure" and I get to the article and its by Dr. Oz and he's talking about eating blueberries, cooking with olive oil and taking omega 3 supplements. I'd be annoyed that I clicked on the article and wasted my time, but I wouldn't yell at you either. I think there is a lot of frustration from Clinton supporters that even if Hillary has more pledged delegates that Bernie, and there is no way he'll pass her in pledged delegates, Bernie supporters keep dismissing that and insisting he should be the nominee and that there is still a significant chance he will be. If the roles were reversed, Hillary would be trashed for her sense of entitlement. I'm a firm believer that the super delegates shouldn't go against the pledged delegate count, and would have felt that way if Bernie had more pledged delegates. Anonymous boards also lend themselves to a lot of snarkiness, regardless of the topic. Don't take it personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently there is still hope for Bernie if he wins California. There is also the possibility of a new candidate emerging such as Biden or Kerry.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

Bernie will get CA.

It doesn't matter, PP. Because even if he wins, the delegate split will be close to even.

It's all about delegates. Clinton just won the USVI, and by such a big margin that she may net more delegates there than Beenie did from his Michigan win. Tomorrow is PR, which has 60 delegates. It's a bigger prize than all but 7 of the states Bernie has won. It has more delegates than MT, SD and ND combined, states Bernie will win Tuesday. HRC will win by a good margin in PR. Then when the polls close in NJ Tuesday, she's the presumptive nominee. No matter what Beenie claims, that's what is going to happen. He may hold more rallies and lobby superdelegates, but he shouldn't. Elizabeth Warren said today that superdelegates should not determine the outcome of the primaries.

[Anonymous]

According to ABC News, Clinton is just 57 delegates away from hitting the magic number.