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.

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.

And there is a less than zero chance Kerry or Biden will come out of nowhere. This makes even less sense than Ryan or Romney saving the Republicans from Trump.

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

FFS learn the difference between opinion pieces and factual articles you morons.

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

Sorry for yelling.

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.

Nothing more than click bait. She will have clinched the nomination and be declared the presumptive nominee before the California polls even close.

Anonymous wrote:

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

The Wall Street journal is sexist. Don't you know it's time for a woman president

Sexist or not, the WSJ has no interest in the Dems winnning.

The author of the article was a former Clinton aide.

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

The Wall Street journal is sexist. Don't you know it's time for a woman president

Sexist or not, the WSJ has no interest in the Dems winnning.

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

The Wall Street journal is sexist. Don't you know it's time for a woman president

She may be the best candidate, but just being a woman isn't enough reason.

I'd look forward to seeing how Bernie and his supporters would win the Clinton supporters over. I sense that's not something they'd feel necessary.

Until the country started hearing about Bernie's downsides.

Also leading among left handed hair stylists!

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

The Wall Street journal is sexist. Don't you know it's time for a woman president

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