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.

Ya' think?

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.

Only thing that'd prevent Hillary from winning the nomination is an indictment.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

I am the "moron" who posted the dictionary link. Apparently there are other "morons" here who agree with the dictionary and myself on the definition of "article." An opinion piece is, in fact, an "article" as long as it is non-fiction and it appears in a publication with other "articles."

Of course. Everyone knows there's zero difference between the news articles the Wall Street Journal publishes and the opinion pieces they choose for their op-ed page.

What the heck do you not get about this concept? Of course opinion pieces and investigative journalism are two different things. But they are both written up in article form and are therefore both "articles."

Nobody thinks that "On the Origin of Species" and "50 Shades of Grey" are the same, but that doesn't mean they're not both "books."

Anonymous wrote:It's usually considered good form to indicate somehow the difference between a "news article" and an "opinion piece," "editorial," or "column." These all can be "articles." I am always interested in opinion pieces that include insightful analysis, but some things that are technically "articles" are not actually informative or persuasive and therefore not as useful.

I find this to be this kind of "article," an opinion piece that seems to be devoid of any facts or meaningful insight and really only written to get people to click on it.

You would have been fine just posting your last sentence. Sorry but it seemed pointless to tell presumably intelligent people that is an opinion piece.

It's usually considered good form to indicate somehow the difference between a "news article" and an "opinion piece," "editorial," or "column." These all can be "articles." I am always interested in opinion pieces that include insightful analysis, but some things that are technically "articles" are not actually informative or persuasive and therefore not as useful.

I find this to be this kind of "article," an opinion piece that seems to be devoid of any facts or meaningful insight and really only written to get people to click on it.

Anonymous wrote:This is an individual op-ed, not the opinion of the Wall Street Journal.

Right. Which is why, if you read the title of the thread, it says that a Wall Street Journal "article" says that Clinton might not be the nominee. Interesting how much time people want to spend splitting hairs.

This is an individual op-ed, not the opinion of the Wall Street Journal.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

I am the "moron" who posted the dictionary link. Apparently there are other "morons" here who agree with the dictionary and myself on the definition of "article." An opinion piece is, in fact, an "article" as long as it is non-fiction and it appears in a publication with other "articles."

Of course. Everyone knows there's zero difference between the news articles the Wall Street Journal publishes and the opinion pieces they choose for their op-ed page.

It is accurate to say that it is an opinion piece and to then disagree with the stated opinions. It is not accurate to say it isn't an article. I really don't know if the author is correct that there is any chance that Clinton won't be the nominee but I think it is an interesting topic for discussion and the author makes some good points. I hope that the DNC is beginning to wake up to the possibility that Clinton will not beat Trump.

I am not trying to offend you here, but the author of that opinion piece is not a major player at this point and he doesn't have his finger on any secret pulse. And it's not "the DNC" that determines the Democratic nominee. It is voters, by and large. And as numerous analyses have demonstrated, there's no plausible scenario by which Sanders could have emerged with the nomination unless he had performed much differently in the primary contests. The media has, to some extent, been stringing everyone along because the press needed the race to be closer than it was. Clinton effectively put the nomination out of Bernie's reach on March 15.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

I am the "moron" who posted the dictionary link. Apparently there are other "morons" here who agree with the dictionary and myself on the definition of "article." An opinion piece is, in fact, an "article" as long as it is non-fiction and it appears in a publication with other "articles."

Of course. Everyone knows there's zero difference between the news articles the Wall Street Journal publishes and the opinion pieces they choose for their op-ed page.

It is accurate to say that it is an opinion piece and to then disagree with the stated opinions. It is not accurate to say it isn't an article. I really don't know if the author is correct that there is any chance that Clinton won't be the nominee but I think it is an interesting topic for discussion and the author makes some good points. I hope that the DNC is beginning to wake up to the possibility that Clinton will not beat Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

I am the "moron" who posted the dictionary link. Apparently there are other "morons" here who agree with the dictionary and myself on the definition of "article." An opinion piece is, in fact, an "article" as long as it is non-fiction and it appears in a publication with other "articles."

Of course. Everyone knows there's zero difference between the news articles the Wall Street Journal publishes and the opinion pieces they choose for their op-ed page.

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

I am the "moron" who posted the dictionary link. Apparently there are other "morons" here who agree with the dictionary and myself on the definition of "article." An opinion piece is, in fact, an "article" as long as it is non-fiction and it appears in a publication with other "articles."

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.

This is just Bernie math, PP. Come on. Clinton is less than 70 delegates short of clinching. You really think hundreds or superdelegates are all of a sudden going to say, hey, we don't care about the millions of voters who prefer Hillary. We're going to take the nomination away from the woman who earned it - the one who would be the first female major-party nominee in history - and hand it to a man who joined the Democratic Party in 2015!

That is so not happening.