Shocking news: Hillary Clinton clinches democratic nomination

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by HeHasTheJazzHands, Jun 6, 2016.

  1. HeHasTheJazzHands

    HeHasTheJazzHands greg rulz ok

    Messages:
    20,702
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    Louisiana
    asher likes this.
  2. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    686
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Fvcking finally.
     
  3. Adam Of Angels

    Adam Of Angels The GAS Man Contributor

    Messages:
    8,708
    Likes Received:
    705
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Location:
    Mount Pleasant, PA
    Except she hasn't yet, and this is in all likelihood a very aggressive and convenient tactic used to sway any last minute decides away from Sanders tomorrow in California. If Sanders does well there, he'll be substantially closer to Hillary, and Superdelegates are not Pledged Delegates.
     
  4. HeHasTheJazzHands

    HeHasTheJazzHands greg rulz ok

    Messages:
    20,702
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Clinton wasn't the one that announced this. :lol: It was the Associated Press. If anything, Clinton can LOSE momentum from this since people will think she already has it in the bag. She probably didn't want the announcement to happen in the first place. :lol:

    On top of that, unless some monumental cluster.... happens on Clintons part (her going to prison, which a LOT of people seem to want), I highly doubt superdelegates will sway towards Bernie. He's been doing a terrible job of trying to convince them to sway. Given the negative campaigning he's been doing in the passed month and all the allegations of fraud, I doubt he's going to do a good job of convincing people.

    As for him doing good in California, the most generous polls have Bernie behind by 2 points, and the mail-in ballot polls have Clinton winning by as much as double-digit points.

    EDIT: Actually, I take it back. A lot of Hillary's voters usually go with an absentee ballot. So yeah, this could hurt Bernie.
     
  5. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Bernie's not going to flip it but the shouting him down for staying in it and the insistence Hillary has had it locked up for over a month hasn't done much to sooth any issues I've had with her.

    The DNC had a chance to compromise with Bernie when they chose convention chairs and co-chairs and instead they picked 3 out of his 40 recommendations and they kept in place his most vitriolic opponents (such as Barney Frank). Whether Bernie admits it or not, he never had a chance and he knew that but he needed to wage a persistent campaign to get the party to start considering Progressives in a serious way. If they offered any significant indications they were going to even marginally capitulate, he would've probably hung it up already. Instead articles like this and the collective refusal to offer any compromises is going to galvanize the disenfranchised center-left independents more and he's going to (rightfully, IMO) keep needling the party up to and potentially after the convention.

    I've said it a million times now. I hate Hillary Clinton but I'd put her at least marginally above Trump. The way things are right now, I don't care enough to even show up to vote in November but I'm not opposed to showing up, holding my nose and voting Hillary if I'm offered anything at all. So far all Sanders supporters have been offered is 1.) "anyone but Trump" 2.) You're stupid kids, just get over it and vote like a big boy 3.) Hillary's platform is progressive enough, she does need to change one bit.

    If you wanted to create the perfect storm to give Trump the presidency, the DNC has been doing a bangup job at it.
     
  6. dr_game0ver

    dr_game0ver SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    37
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Location:
    France
    good thing i am not American so i don't have to chose between a racist crazy clown f*ck or a lunatic mentally sick left wing trash trying to create a 4th reich... until next year.
     
  7. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Exit polling and surveys suggest that ideology/policies are not the main drivers of the Clinton/Sanders split: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/o...rs-favor-his-policies.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0. Specifically, Sanders voters were *less* likely than Clinton voters to support Sanders' policy proposals. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect the Clinton team to make significant concessions to Sanders' positions during the general election.
     
  8. TheTrooper

    TheTrooper SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    69
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Location:
    Ascoli Piceno, Italy
    Let me say something (here comes the guy that lives in the most desperate, corrupted, rotten, comical Nation of the World)

    It's not over at all.
    If You listen/read the .... that Rolling Stone says well, I'm sorry for You but Clinton doesn't have 2383 delegats, primaries in California aren't done yet and things change along the way.

    Sure, Clinton will probably be the Democratic Nominee since she's way ahead of Sanders, but she's not *yet*
     
  9. Mordacain

    Mordacain 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,421
    Likes Received:
    419
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    Oh, the AP continues to make the same mistake they've made since before the campaign even started and is counting pledged superdelegates as if they've actually voted? :coffee:

    I'd have preferred if Bernie hadn't had to resort to running a negative campaign; of course he's just firing the gun and Clinton and the DNC are the ones giving him the ammunition. Most recent example: the state department postponing releasing her emails on TPP until November; that's not suspicious at all :rolleyes:

    I'm on the fence if I could hold my nose and vote for her. Pragmatically, I know she is the lesser of two evils (though only just) but it does seem more likely that the inevitable sheer incompetency of a Trump presidency might be enough to push the voting population over the cliff and embrace a true progressive candidate (say an Elizabeth Warren) in 2020. True, historical data would show that never being the case, but as we've seen, historical data hasn't been worth a .... this election cycle and the new generation coming into the polls for the first time this election cycle are overwhelmingly progressive from a policy standpoint.

    Luckily for this go-round my vote is absolutely worthless (I live in South Carolina and Clinton is never getting even close to the majority here) so I can vote my conscious and vote for Jill Stein).
     
  10. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,957
    Likes Received:
    1,131
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    How many people will actually vote for whomever they want to win?

    If a majority of people are voting based upon whomever they hate least, then the election process has already failed the nation.
     
  11. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Not entirely sure what you're implying the end game is here. Sanders supporters actually like Hillary's policies better, so they're all of the sudden going to forget who's mouth they're coming out of and vote for her in November, or her numbers are good enough without them that all of Bernie's supporters can stay home in November and she'll still win handily? :scratch:
     
  12. Mordacain

    Mordacain 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,421
    Likes Received:
    419
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    I don't think we can really say the Sander's supporters actually like Clinton's policies better. I've only seen one article (which cites no proper references, mind you: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/o...do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html) and it was from the the New York Times, whose pro-Clinton bias is well established. That article was based on exit polling from 22 of the primaries, many of which were closed primaries which blocks many of Sander's supporters from even voting, let alone taking an exit poll.

    To even address whether or not Clinton can win the general without the Sander's supporters coming over we'd have to look at the break-down of what states she has carried on her own. By and large, the states that propelled her to the lead in the nomination are states that she cannot possibly win in the general (namely, mostly Southern, blood-red states) or that are at best very close swing states. Given the break-down of total votes in states like Florida, Trump had her beat in raw voter turnout in general. Going by primary voter turnout numbers, she really does need all of the Sanders' supporters and independents she can get.
     
  13. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    480
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    Randy was suggesting/asking if that the other dude was implying the stuff that Randy wrote, I thought.
     
  14. Mordacain

    Mordacain 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,421
    Likes Received:
    419
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    Yea, that's my bad. I can see that being confusing now. I was just responding to the idea about policies in the most convenient way to me.

    Apologies for slight thread derailment.:yesway:
     
  15. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Mostly just asking him to clarify. He's implying something without stating it explicitly and I'm a little unclear on what his point is.

    My common sense has said what Mordacain wrote is how things play out and celticelk's post says basically the polar opposite. I'm open to the idea that my supposed 'common sense' is wrong but I'd like to hear a more full throated explanation if I'm going to accept such a radically different viewpoint.
     
  16. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    2,406
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    No derailment at all. Like I said, you basically typed what I've been thinking. I just wanted the other guy to clarify his points further.
     
  17. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    TECHNICALLY, aren't the super delegates "free" until they cast their ballots at the convention?

    A big Bernie win in California may set some of them afloat. They won't say, 'I'm going to go Bernie.' But they might say 'I'll think about it. See you at the convention.'

    Especially considering the dislike-a-thon taking place between Hillary and Trump....?
     
  18. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    My point was that since the data suggest that primary votes against Clinton are based on things *other than* policy preferences, it makes little sense for Clinton to push her platform further left in the vain hopes of attracting those votes back. (And before anyone brings it up: of course there are people who prefer Sanders based on policy, but the point of these data is that policy differences are apparently less important than other factors in determining Democratic primary votes.) This point is especially pertinent (and I didn't make this clear in my initial response) if, by tacking left, Clinton risks alienating moderate independents who are actually considering voting for Trump as a serious choice between candidates rather than as an exercise in anti-establishment advocacy (which seems to be the case for a fair few voters on the Sanders side). Does that make more sense?
     
  19. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Obviously they *might*, but the preponderance of the evidence suggest they *won't*. The votes of the superdelegates have not contradicted the vote outcome of the pledged delegates in any Democratic primary in the last three decades, since the superdelegate system was instituted, and Clinton is going to win the majority of the pledged delegates. The burden of proof is on those claiming that things will be different this year.
     
  20. HeHasTheJazzHands

    HeHasTheJazzHands greg rulz ok

    Messages:
    20,702
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    Louisiana
    ^Thats what I was trying to say. The chances of supers flipping to Sanders is extremely slim. Given Clinton has the most votes so far, they're going for her. Hell, the only time a super flipped this election season was a Puerto Rico one from Bernie to Hillary, because she had better policies for Puerto Rico.

    Also, given that Clinton also has a higher chance of winning Cali today (a lot of Clinton voters used an absentee ballot), once again, chances of supers flipping from Clinton to Hillary are small unless Bernie demolishes her in Cali. And by the looks of it, it'll be a very close race. Clinton has to completely .... up Cali, but even then it looks like it'll still be in her favor.
     

Share This Page