patrick.net

Take a double dose, until you get an appointment with a good proctologist.

Agreed.

The ass-whoopings in California and New Jersey place Sanders in good position to sell his case to the superdelegates.

Having lost to Hillary at the ballot box, it's clear that Bernie deserves the nomination and is best qualified to face Trump in the general election.

Dan8267 says

For all practical purposes, it's a tie.

You are delusional. In now way is 2184 to 1804 a tie in an election. That's roughly 55% to 45%. She got roughly 57% of the popular vote in the primary. That's a pretty dam big lead. It would take a monumental move by super-delegates to override that lead. That would be incredible considering (1) Bernie is not even a Democrat (2) Bernie has been running against the Democratic establishment (3) Bernie used to complain that the super-delegates were going to override his popular vote victory (4) Hillary has raised tons of money for the Democratic party and has courted the support of the super-delegates for ages.

Make sure everyone votes for Hillary. I sure she will show us the WMDs.

A new Democratic party motto? Fuck you voters! Our super delegates will decide who the nominee will be.

George Carlin:
"Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls."

He forgot to end this with, You Stupid Fucks!

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

For all practical purposes, it's a tie.

You are delusional. In now way is 2184 to 1804 a tie in an election. That's roughly 55% to 45%.

You must step back and consider the quality of the votes Bernie received.

In an insightful earlier post, Dan explained that Bernie received more votes in less-blue states. Now these votes are much like three-point shots in the NBA, so each should count 50% more than regular votes, which probably came from blacks and Mexicans in bluer states, anyway.

After making these and other adjustments after the fact, it becomes clear that Bernie is the rightful nominee.

YesYNot says

In now way is 2184 to 1804 a tie in an election.

I take it you mean "in what way is 2184 to 1804 a tie". Clearly you do not understand the Democratic primary process, so I will explain.

The ONLY thing that matters regarding who gets nominated is whether or not a candidate gets to 2383 pledged delegates BEFORE the Democratic convention. 2184 is less than 2383. Therefore, neither candidate has won by definition and neither candidate can know whether or not he or she will get the nomination at the convention.

More importantly there are 619 superdelegates who will talk over strategy between now and the convention and debate how they should vote. Not every superdelegate will vote the same way, but they do persuade each other and vote strategically. Both 2184 + 619 > 2383 and 1804 + 619 > 2383 so either candidate can still win if enough superdelegates vote for him or her. So by definition, not reaching the pledged delegates threshold is an effective tie. It may not be an even tie, but it is a tie.

Again, you may think the system sucks -- and it does -- but that doesn't change how the system works. Under the system, both candidates are tied and the tie is supposed to be broken by the superdelegates. However, the superdelegate vote may be split so that neither candidate has enough delegates even after the superdelegates all vote. If this happens there are rounds of votings in which delegates get unbounded and can vote for anyone regardless of the popular vote. The precise way this happens depends on the rules set by the Democratic Party for their convention and the GOP for theirs. In short, if the superdelegates can't agree in enough numbers on one of the two candidates then pledged delegates become unpledged and can switch their votes. The rounds of voting ends when their is a clear victor.

It is a value judgement to say that Sanders or Hillary should not get the nomination. It is factually incorrect to say that either Sanders or Hillary cannot get the nomination at this point.

I hope this post clears things up because it seems that the vast majority of Americans have no clue as to how the primary process works or how the Democratic convention works.

HydroCabron says

In an insightful earlier post, Dan explained that Bernie received more votes in less-blue states.

One can make many valid criticisms of the primary process used by each party. They are both really, really stupid. In fact, everything we do in elections is really, really stupid, but I could write a whole thread on that subject matter.

The bottom line is that the SOLE, not primary, but SOLE purpose of superdelegates is to vote AGAINST the will of the narrow subset of voters who can and do vote in the primaries because they picked a candidate that is not likely to win the general election. Superdelegates exist solely for the purpose of overriding bad decision making caused by all the problems in the primary process such as not letting independent swing voters vote. Superdelegates were created to vote strategically when necessary. This election is the quintessential example of why the Democratic party leaders thought superdelegates were necessary.

Now I don't think that enough of the superdelegates will vote for Bernie to nominate him. I think that Hillary will be the nominee on July 28th, but unlike 99% of Americans I don't lie about knowing something just because I want that something to be true. I honestly do think that enough superdelegates will vote in their own personal interest in garnering favor from Hillary rather than voting for their party's interests and ensuring someone who will defeat Trump is elected. I'd like to be wrong tough.

In any case, I cannot calculate the probability of superdelegates voting for Sanders or Clinton, and neither can anyone else. Whoever says they can is either a liar or a fool or both. There is simply not enough publicly available information to make any accurate mathematical model of the superdelegate vote. This is a mathematical fact, not an opinion. If you disagree with it, you are simply wrong.

All one can say honestly is that if the superdelegates did the sole job they were created for, they would nominate Bernie because he stands a far, far better chance of defeating Trump than Clinton as every single poll from last year to today clearly shows. Furthermore, if Bernie supporters stay home, and many will if he's not the nominee, the Democrats will lose many critical House and Senate seats that are far more important than the White House. So nominating Clinton will greatly harm the Democrats even if she wins. Every GOP insider is praying to his fictitious god that Hillary is the nominee.

First woman presumptive nominee, and she's there because she did the right slob.
Ok she was persistent too.

Congratulations to Bernie Sanders for getting the nomination:

Dan8267 says

I take it you mean "in what way is 2184 to 1804 a tie".

I meant 'in no way,' but for some reason, I type now instead of no sometimes. You confuse the game not being over with a tie. It's now the 4th quarter with 50 seconds left, and Bernie is down by 2 touchdowns with one time out. Is it technically possible for him to win? Yes. Is it a tie game? In no fucking way is this a tie. Even if there was only one superdelegate who at this point got to decide the election, it wouldn't be a tie, b/c the superdelegate would have to override the will of the voters. They could do that of course, but it would tarnish the candidate. The same arguments were made about Cruz when he and Kasich were angling for a contested convention. Oh the cries of the establishment stealing the election were loud. It could have been done, but everybody knew it would tarnish the victor.
Back in reality, there are 619 superdelegates. They will not all vote as one block. Based on the numbers you gave, Hillary needs 199 of them and Bernie needs 579 of them. Do you really think that Bernie will get 94% of the super delegates? How many changed their mind to vote for Obama? How many would need to change their mind to vote for Bernie?

I see that 619 is not the number of superdelegates, although I just skimmed 3 articles, and they all listed a different number of superdelegates.

YesYNot says

You confuse the game not being over with a tie. It's now the 4th quarter with 50 seconds left, and Bernie is down by 2 touchdowns with one time out. Is it technically possible for him to win?

No, you clearly don't understand what I mean by an "effective tie". This really is an intelligence test. If you cannot understand this, then that's on you.

It means almost nothing that Hillary has more pledged delegates than Bernie because the superdelegates are under no obligation whatsoever to take that into account when deciding how they should vote. In fact, the sole purpose of their existence is to vote contrary to the pledged delegates. This is something you just don't seem to understand.

The only effect that having more pledged delegates has is that it requires a greater number of superdelegates to vote for Bernie for him to be nominated. But since superdelegates go into a smoke filled room and discuss voting strategy and how the general election will turn out under different scenarios, superdelegate votes are not independent of each other. They collude. They are suppose to collude. That's why they exist.

Failing to get enough pledged delegates before the convention is an effective tie because the superdelegates must break a stalemate. If you cannot understand this simple principle, you are not that smart.

By the way, absolutely nothing I said in this thread or others like it would be changed if I wanted Hillary to be president instead of Bernie. You cannot honestly make a similar claim.

YesYNot says

I see that 619 is not the number of superdelegates

Maybe. I was going off Google. See the picture in the original post. 571 + 48 = 619. Maybe Google is neglecting to report some of the superdelegates who haven't stated a preference in the past. If so, that makes it easier for Bernie to be nominated.

In any case there are enough superdelegates to have the nomination go either way. That is undeniable.

Dan8267 says

For all practical purposes, it's a tie. It's all up to the super delegates now. We won't know who they pick until July 25-28 when the Democratic convention is held and the super delegates finally vote.

Yup, Hillary is short of elected delegates. Superdelegates vote at the convention. They can still change their minds.

Dan8267 says

It means almost nothing that Hillary has more pledged delegates than Bernie because the superdelegates are under no obligation whatsoever to take that into account when deciding how they should vote. In fact, the sole purpose of their existence is to vote contrary to the pledged delegates. This is something you just don't seem to understand.

I understand that perfectly. It's under what conditions they might override the vote that is important. If their sole purpose was to always override the primary result, then they would not exist. We would just have a primary and then the loser would be selected.

You are the one failing the intelligence test, which is to figure out if the current circumstances are likely to cause the superdelegates to select Bernie. Your only reason to think that they would pick Bernie is electability, but that is dubious, because he hasn't faced much criticism yet.

Dan8267 says

For all practical purposes, it's a tie

Thanks for that. Yesterday's results do not seem to have widened the gap is pledged delegates.

Dan8267 says

By the way, absolutely nothing I said in this thread or others like it would be changed if I wanted Hillary to be president instead of Bernie. You cannot honestly make a similar claim.

Here's what Sanders' supporters are saying:

“Once a candidate has won a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote, which Secretary Clinton has now done, we have our nominee,” Merkley, who is Sanders’ sole supporter in the Senate, told me. “This is the moment when we need to start bringing parts of the party together so they can go into the convention with locked arms and go out of the convention unified into the general election.”
..
Merkley — who is a super-delegate himself — said flatly that Sanders should not pursue this course any longer. “The super-delegates are set aside when you make the judgment that you have a majority of the pledged delegates,” Merkley told me. “I would not support a battle that involves trying to flip super-delegates.”
...
“The reality is unattainable at some point. You deal with that. Bernie is going to deal with this much more rapidly than you think,” said Grijalva, who is also a super-delegate. “At some point, when we’re trying to flip 400 super-delegates, and it’s not gaining traction, I think you have to come to the conclusion that it’s not going to happen. You just move into a different direction. And that different direction is that we begin to try to integrate the party.”

“He’s gonna do the right thing,” Grijalva said.
...
“Democracy for America has said consistently since 2007 that the winner of the majority of the pledged delegates should be the nominee,” said Neil Sroka, a spokesman for Democracy for America, the progressive group founded by Howard Dean, which has backed Sanders. “The system is what it is, and Sanders is within his rights to pursue super-delegates. But at the end of the day, DFA believes that the winner of the majority of the pledged delegates should be the nominee.”

As I said here: http://patrick.net/Sanders%27+triumph+-+the+amendment+king+can+stick+a+feather+in+his+cap

At this point, Bernie is just going for more influence amending the platform.

Inspector General says Hillary's "Fully Permitted... to use private service" is false. She simply didn't ask permission, knowing it would have been denied.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

The policy also mandated Hillary to hand over all relevant work emails prior to leaving office, which she did not do.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/clinton-spins-immigration-emails/

YesYNot says

If their sole purpose was to always override the primary result,

Stop making straw man arguments. No one said anything remotely like "the sole purpose of superdelegates is to always override the primary result". If that were the case, superdelegates would simply be a needless complication.

The purpose of superdelegates is to vote strategically overriding the preference of pledge delegates when that preference does not reflect the preference of voters in the general election. It makes no sense to nominate a candidate who appeals to the base but has little chance of winning the general election especially if an alternative candidate has a very good chance of winning the election. This is exactly what happened in the 1972 election which resulted in the creation of superdelegates.

The same situation applies to the 2016 election. It is a fact that Bernie Sanders will garner more votes, especially in key swing states, than Hillary despite that Hillary has more votes from the base. Whether or not you prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency in order to give Hillary a shot at the presidency is irrelevant. The actual situation is exactly what the superdelegates were intended to diffuse. Whether or not you think they should throw the switch is irrelevant to this fact.

You can take some comfort in that it's likely the superdelegates will give in to cronyism and fail at their duty by nominating Hillary. Whether or not she would win the general election is a coin flip. So, if you rather have a Trump presidency just to nominate Hillary instead of Bernie, bully for you. You'll probably get your way. But that doesn't mean that Hillary has "won" the nomination at this point. Nor does it mean that it would be illegal or inconceivable that the superdelegates will nominate Bernie instead. Saying either of these things simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the primary process.

Blurtman says

Thanks for that. Yesterday's results do not seem to have widened the gap is pledged delegates.

Actually it did a little, but not nearly enough to change the results. There is no nominee and won't be until the superdelegates vote in the convention. And no one can honestly give a reasoned answer to how those superdelegates will vote because the real strategizing has just begun. None of us are privileged to listen in those backroom conversations and none of us will know what deals are brokered behind closed doors. Even after the convention we won't know what promises were made in exchange for votes.

YesYNot says

Here's what Sanders' supporters are saying:

Correction: Here's what some Sanders' supporters are saying.

And who cares? It doesn't change reality.

It is quite plausible that Sanders gets the nomination at the convention. If you find this inconceivable, then you don't understand the primary.

Whether or not you feel that Sanders getting the nomination is unjust is irrelevant. I don't find it inconceivable that Hillary gets the nomination even though I think its unjust that she, Obama, and Bush aren't in prison for life for crimes against humanity.

www.OHVjs4aobqs

Dan8267 says

Information classified much later is not the fault of Hillary, but rather the assholes who specify what information is classified. They screwed up.

Dan, the information was so hot and real time, it had yet to be classified, which is an important difference.

thunderlips11 says

Dan, the information was so hot and real time, it had yet to be classified, which is an important difference.

Then the generator of the original email should have submitted it to review before sending it. I see no criminal intent in forwarding an email that is not sent with a classified notice. Again, Hillary had bad judgement, but that's a far cry from criminal activity.

I'm also quite skeptical that any of the material should be classified. Our secretive government over-classifies things. With the exception of battle plans and weapons schematics, there should be almost no classified information in a free society.

Dan8267 says

Then the generator of the original email should have submitted it to review before sending it. I see no criminal intent in forwarding an email that is not sent with a classified notice. Again, Hillary had bad judgement, but that's a far cry from criminal activity.

Dan, this is stuff Hillary and her staff are doing in real time at the state department.

It's kind of like this: The team developing stealth coating has to do the work first, then it's classified and hidden away after.

The team leaving the blueprints out in the open or file sharing them on their personal computers/unapproved file sharing network before they can be classified and hidden is negligence.

Also, what evidence do we have that the 30,000 emails she deleted were actually personal, and not dealing with Clinton Foundation donors, for example? Only her word.

thunderlips11 says

The team developing stealth coating has to do the work first, then it's classified and hidden away after.

I sincerely doubt that Hillary's email contained weapons schematics.

Sure, one can say it's bad judgement on her part using the private email service. However, my point is that Hillary broke no law when she read and forwarded those emails.

I also am very skeptical that there was anything in those email that would compromise our national security if the whole world read them. If our national security was so weak and vulnerable, we should just overthrow our government for incompetence.

Can anyone name a single thing in those emails that actually compromises our national security?

thunderlips11 says

Also, what evidence do we have that the 30,000 emails she deleted were actually personal, and not dealing with Clinton Foundation donors, for example? Only her word.

Yes, and this is indicative of how slimy most people in government are. Although the government agents love spying on people and breaking into their computers, they don't want a camera recording their own activities. The police hate that the public can now record them with every smartphone even to the point of threatening people with death, beatings, and false imprisonment.

However, lack of evidence of innocence is not evidence of guilt.

In any case, it does not matter that Clinton wiped her email server. We all know the NSA has a copy of every packet sent a sizable distance within or through the United States. The NSA could reconstruct all those emails if it were so damn important to do so.

In fact, I don't bother backing up my files anymore. I just name them "bomb plans for ISIS" so that the NSA will back them up for me. They probably spend countless hours looking at cat pictures trying to find some message embedded with steganography that's not there.

Dan8267 says

Can anyone name a single thing in those emails that actually compromises our national security?

Can't, because several of them are classified as Top Secret and not released to the public. Rumor is they contain names, places, and identifying information on agents and operations.

Very useful to the Chinese and Russians. If Guccifer saw them...

thunderlips11 says

Rumor is

Rumor should carry no weight. If the rumors had any legitimacy, it would mean that other people are currently leaking classified information, specifically the people classifying it.

Dan8267 says

Rumor should carry no weight. If the rumors had any legitimacy, it would mean that other people are currently leaking classified information, specifically the people classifying it.

Only the investigation will tell us... well, I can think of a few others who have it and might leak it via a third party.

Dan8267 says

the sole purpose of their existence is to vote contrary to the pledged delegates.

Based on "A Brief History of Superdelegates" the several purposes of their existence are order and procedure at conventions and to assure electability of a nominee and to homogenize factionalism. Good link from another thread, Dan, thanks. So they should vote INDEPENDENTLY, not contrarily. You can make a case that if in their minds they perceive Clinton a weaker opponent to Trump they have justification to vote for Sanders, but the factionalism of the past is no longer extant and some of the weird rules of state primaries have also been homogenized over the years since the 70s and 80s. If Sanders were the Dem's frontrunner and polling ahead of Trump it would be one thing, but to say it is the duty of SDs to vote him in at the convention is a stretch.

Nope she is under investigation by the FBI. Now she was stupid enough to use private servers that ended up in the closet of a bathroom-I would never vote for trump or anybody who was that careless/cavalier in his attitude towards national security.

Guilt or innocence of criminal charges/statues will wait on the FBI. however has there ever been a Presidential candidate that ran that was under investigation by the FBI over acts they did as a Cabinet Sec?

neplusultra57 says

to say it is the duty of SDs to vote him in at the convention is a stretch

Superdelegates have no "duty" and no obligation to vote in any particular way or for any particular reason. However, the reason supedelegates were created was to prevent the party from losing the election because primary voters picked a candidate who does not appeal to the general election voters. There purpose is to override the base's choice when it is strategic to do so, but they have no duty and are not in any way constrained to do so. The superdelegate experiment -- and it is an experiment -- may very well fail. If Hillary is nominated and loses the general election, then the superdelegate experiment will have failed.

lostand confused says

Hillary is under investigation by the FBI. trump is not. if the roles are reversed and Trump was the Sec of State and he was stupid enough to conduct his email on a private server that was found in a bathroom closet

I can think of lots of better reasons not to vote for Hillary. Here's one. She's a chicken-hawk. Trump may talk tough with his base, but I doubt Trump will jump into bed with every war he meets. Hillary has.

I wonder if Donald is jealous of that picture.

Yep, both Hillary and Donald have ties to known KKK clansman. You know who doesn't? Bernie Sanders. He's the guy who marched with MLK, was arrested for supporting the civil rights movement, and has decades of consistent pro-civil-rights work. Yet, African Americans are just not voting for him. They are voting for Hillary. WTF?

Dan8267 says

Yet, African Americans are just not voting for him. T

they aren't voting for him.... because the voting is over except for DC, and he lost....

wrong verb there delusional dan. They didn't vote for him.... would be the correct tense. You just can't get your head around the reality that its time to stick a fork in it.... it's done!

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses, you really are a dumb ass. You're the type of person who gives the left a bad reputation and somehow soils the images of liberals as a result. You're like Triggly Puff. You are incapable of rational, intelligent, adult conversation.

The real reason Hillary Clinton is getting the African American vote is that Bill Clinton was and still is very popular with African Americans. And many such voters still have a strong emotional connection to the image of the Clintons.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468185698/understanding-the-clintons-popularity-with-black-voters

There are a lot of reasons for her strength with this demographic: her name recognition, her record and her politics, for example. But it's not just her; the Clintons are simply popular among African-Americans.

It's true that Bill Clinton enjoyed heavy support from the black community in the 1990s. But as Hillary Clinton seeks the nomination herself, some are raising questions about just how good the Clinton presidency was for black Americans — not to mention whether Hillary Clinton should get any credit (or, alternatively, blame) for her husband's legacy.

Unfortunately, you are simply not mature enough to discuss this subject at an adult level.

Please, master Dan, please tell us blacks how wez out to votes and all!

Wez just po dum black folk, votin clinton and all wiff out no thinkin and learnin...

That's why they call them "low info" voters. There's lots of older women and blacks that voted for Clinton. I don't know why and they don't either. They just vote for her because she is a woman.

errc says

That's why they call them "low info" voters. There's lots of older women and blacks that voted for Clinton. I don't know why and they don't either. They just vote for her because she is a woman.

yep, we po black womens, we duble stupid... black AND women.... errc and that Drumpf guy jus haz the gutz to speak what everybody else skared two say.

ain't racist at all sayin all us blacks is stuipid, and women too. jus sayin it how it iz.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Please, master Dan, please tell us blacks how wez out to votes and all!

What, you can't read the NPR article you illiterate moron?

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

ain't racist at all sayin all us blacks is stuipid, and women too. jus sayin it how it iz.

No, you clearly are the form of racist who is the white guilt equivalent of the "white knight" sexist who thinks women must be protected from imaginary threats. You are right now demonstrating that you think African American need to be protected by some imaginary threat and you are the white knight they need to rescue them. That's highly fucking racist.