patrick.net

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.

errc says

That's why they call them "low info" voters.

This is precisely the problem with America. And both morons on the right like Call It Crazy and morons on the left like dumbass are illustrations of low information voters. And instead of listening to more knowledgeable people, they just live in a bubble and attack anyone who doesn't agree with every stupid thing they say. No wonder Trump is doing so well!

Dan8267 says

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.

strawman. you don't get to make up my positions, then debate your made up positions. you really are deceitful lying millenial loser.

YOU have asserted that black people "should be voting for Bernie..."

I believe the majority of black voters, particularly primary voters, know what they are doing, and thus are intelligent enough to have picked the best candidate for themselves as individuals.

Your point of view is condescending and racist.

quit lying about my positions, you fucking loser.

jazz music says

Call It Crazy with 2 posts ever on patnet!

I also noticed the similarity between dumbass and CIC. They are nearly identical in personality even though technical opposites on the one-dimensional political spectrum employed by most Americans.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

strawman. you don't get to make up my positions, then debate your made up positions. you really are deceitful lying millenial loser.

1. You clearly don't know what a straw man is. Read http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
2. What the fuck is a "made up" position and how does it differ from a "not made up" position?
3. As I've already told you, I am not a Millennial. And as I've also told you, you are entitled to have whatever baseless, vile, and unrespectable opinions you want including that I'm a loser, but you are not entitled to your own facts. When you state that I am a Millennial, you are simply wrong as you are wrong in every other factual statement you have made today.
4. Why are you such a bigot against Millennials? Did one of them fuck your mother? The Millennials are the most educated generation in American history. Why such hate for them? Inferiority complex?

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

YOU have asserted that black people "should be voting for Bernie..."

Again, a factually incorrect statement. This time you might simply be wrong rather than lying. Your reading comprehension skills are quite poor.

I have never made the assertion that "black people should be voting for Bernie". I made two statements:
1. African Americans are voting mainly for Hillary Clinton rather than Bernie Sanders.
2. This fact is surprising given that Hillary has consorted with a KKK clansman and Sanders was pivotal in civil rights for African Americans for the past 40+ years.

The first statement is a fact. If you dispute it, you are simply wrong. The second statement is an opinion, but it is a reasonable one and I'm well within my rights to state a reasoned opinion.

However, I will make another statement that will directly challenge the claim you are trying to make. It would be in African American's self-interest to have voted for Sanders instead of Hillary because Sanders has a long history of protecting their civil rights. Feel free to argue that president Hillary would be in African American's better self-interest. I'd like to see that. It would be like watching a toddler try to solve differential equations.

Oh, and you might want to listen to what Cornel West is saying in the video below. I know you are too childish to read anything, so this is in video form...

www.NzHsGwpzGv4

Dan8267 says

I also noticed the similarity between dumbass and CIC.

Fuck no. That's not cic. It's more likely RA. Plus, hrs right. Dan, your view regarding who black people should vote for is condescending. Blow had a good article about that this election cycle.

Dans facts: I want bernie to win, and I'm a crybaby, so I won't accept anything else.

MY facts:
1. the delegates have SAID they are voting for Hillary. FACT.
2. Hillary has nearly 400 more pledged delegates than Bernie. FACT.
3. Hillary had 4 million or so more votes in the primary than Bernie. FACT.
4. Everyone experienced in calling primaries, has called it for Clinton. Fact.

zzyzzx says

zzyzzx  

Dude, add a width="600" to your image tags.

Hillary caught on tape explaining she doesn't use email for political reasons.
www.tRnkN9C7gDw

In other words, she endangered US Secrets for her Political Purposes.

thunderlips11 says

Hillary caught on tape explaining she doesn't use email for political reasons.

Jesus Christ. Does Stan Lee have to appear as a cameo in every movie?

Dan8267 says

I sincerely doubt that Hillary violated any law in emailgate and that the FBI will indite her

She didn't violate any law, but she put herself outside the policy she was supposed to enforce as the Boss - bad judgement and bad leadership.

thunderlips11 says

She didn't violate any law, but she put herself outside the policy she was supposed to enforce as the Boss - bad judgement and bad leadership.

On that I can agree wholeheartedly, but Hillary has done many things far worse like
- voting for the USA Patriot Act
- voting for the Bush wars
- opposing marriage equality
- supporting the TPP secrecy
- supporting keeping Gitmo open
- supporting bailouts to big banks and opposing financial reform
- taking huge bribes from special interests

Her email fiasco is small beans in comparison.