Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...There are a few piece of interesting information, but you can’t write/edit this badly and expect anything but yawning and skimming.

Thai, try to get passed it. I can agree with the stylistic criticism, but so what? None of it is germane to the facts this young man purports to detail. His path to certainty and examination/presentation of the facts are what interested me. And his criticism of the media's response is spot on.

Every writer benefits from good editing, but this kid is writing for free and his "editor" for lack of a better name likely read with less attention than you; such is the state of publishing these days.

Maybe cut him some slack? Maybe use that massive intellect of yours to punch holes in his thesis because that's why I put it up in the first place. I've been nonplussed about Benghazi and the emails too, but this young man makes a compelling case and it seems I've been wrong to pay so little mind to it.

So where is he wrong? How has he misinterpreted the law? These are far more compelling questions than his stylistic choices or the demise of copyediting, generally.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Sanders supporters should not start to be excited too soon. The DNC is likely trying to delay this process as long as possible to have HRC get enough votes to insure nomination, then find a way to steer the vote to Biden or Warren to deny Sanders.

What are each party's rules when the leading or nominated candidate withdraws, dies, or is indicted or convicted before or after nomination?

What happens if an elected president withdraws, dies or is indicted or convicted before they take the oath? (Elected VP takes the oath?)

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

even if the fbi refers the issue, they'll be referring it to the obama dep't of justice. do you think they'll indict? and if not, what happens? they can delay til after the election, and then if necessary obama can pardon her without any indictment- a prophylactic gerry ford move. there would then be 4 years for the stink to clear.

meanwhile, i think part of why democrats dismiss this issue is not because they think what she did was ok, and not because they think what she did was minor. i think democrats have long accepted the idea of "crooked clintons" before trump pinned that label on her. everybody knows the clintons play fast and loose with the rules; it's part of the package. but dems are ready to overlook that, saying that the package as a whole suits them, in spite of its defects and problems.


edit: just [quickly] read the georgia review version. it is abridged, so perhaps i missed something, but the clearest bit of "born classified" data was the identity of a cia agent in libya. that was not revealed by clinton, however. that was revealed by blumenthal. it looks like a clearer case to say that blumenthal violated the law.

[loweyecue]

Re: Trump to win?

A must read:



Orginal, longer form here.

I find the singular lack of support from superdelegates for Bernie to be not just hard to comprehend but quite disturbing. I realize the pledges are non binding and they can still vote for him if they choose but I would have expected a few more public announcements of them switching over by now. That to me THAT is the least discussed aspect of this election cycle. No one is calling on these folks to switch in spite of the looming disaster warnings of a Billary nomination. The lack of discussion about this in the mainstream media is also significant. But all that being as it may, these are high profile people in the DNC, surely all of them can't be so enamored with Billary?

The monolithic totality of the superdelegate support helped decide the primary before we even knew who the candidates were. Even if there isn't collusion or intentional jerry rigging the system is so openly and incomprehensibly loaded that the popular vote is completely irrelevant unless you win 60% of it. If this isn't a coronation it's hard to fathom what is.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Aren't you ignoring the fact that Clinton has won 54% of the pledged delegates and 57% of the popular vote? Shouldn't Super Delegates support a candidate that has this wide a popular vote margin within the party?

No fan of Clinton (or anyone running this year) but Bernie doesn't have anything going for him except some late momentum. Do you want to negate the grass root voters in the party?

[FrankL]

Re: Trump to win?

Aren't you ignoring the fact that Clinton has won 54% of the pledged delegates and 57% of the popular vote? Shouldn't Super Delegates support a candidate that has this wide a popular vote margin within the party?

No fan of Clinton (or anyone running this year) but Bernie doesn't have anything going for him except some late momentum. Do you want to negate the grass root voters in the party?

So are you telling us here, that you don't think there's any steering of public opinion in openly crowning a candidate by giving them a huge head-start, _before_ the majority of the popular vote for a candidate occurs?

Are you selling this to yourself as 'playing the devils advocate'? If so, I'm not buying..

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

So are you telling us here, that you don't think there's any steering of public opinion in openly crowning a candidate by giving them a huge head-start, _before_ the majority of the popular vote for a candidate occurs?

Are you selling this to yourself as 'playing the devils advocate'? If so, I'm not buying..

I think the first thing that everyone should work to understand is that despite what the media reports, Hillary Clinton will not be clinching the nomination before the convention. Because math.

Clinton has 1,770 delegates and Sanders 1,500.To clinch the nomination a candidate needs 2,383 delegates. This is because there are 4,765 total total delegates (4,051 pledged delegates + 714 “super-delegates”) and 2,383 is half+1 of that number. If a candidate had that number, there would be no way for another candidate to catch up. Neither Clinton or Sanders will be getting that number of delegates before the convention. This is because superdelegates don't vote until July. The only delegates that are really available right now are the pledged delegates. Since the pledged delegates are the only real numbers we have (at the moment), those are what we should pay attention to.

To get to the 2,383 that clinches the nomination, Clinton will need to secure 613 pledged delegates out of the 781 remaining (2,383 – 1,770 = 613), which means that she needs about 78.5% (613 ÷ 781 = 0.7848) to win. Neither candidate will have won before the convention and VT is correct to point out that the super delegates will be the ones deciding the democratic nominee. Sanders, thus far, has 45.9% of the pledged delegates — and Clinton stands with 54.1%. Clinton supporters and the corporate media will tell you that it’s impossible for Bernie to win, but it's not only possible, it is growing increasingly possible as the California polls tighten up.

To arrive at 2,026 Bernie needs 526 more pledged delegates to take the lead (2,026 – 1,500 = 526) or 67.3% of the remaining delegates to get 2,026 (526 ÷ 781 = 0.673). That's definitely an uphill battle, but it's been uphill both ways since Bernie announced. HRC had already made a lifetime of promises and gifts to secure support from the Democratic elites in their capacity as superdelegates and operated under the belief that the campaign would be a coronation.

But Bernie went ahead a ran anyway, winning an unprecedented and unexpected tally of primaries and caucuses. The Sanders candidacy was not supposed to get anywhere, but this Jewish socialist from Brooklyn has beaten Clinton in states where she defeated Obama. He's bled the Clinton campaign white and has gained steady support while Clinton has been in freefall. Uphill battles is what the Sanders campaign does best. And it wins.

It's not over and won't be until the convention. We still the June 4th Virgin Islands caucus, Puerto Rico on June 5th and the big day, June 7th when New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and California get their turn. Sanders is fighting for every vote and Hillary has never been more vulnerable. Her scandals are finally catching up to Clinton and even soon the media won’t be able to let her off the hook. Clinton broke her promise to debate before the June 7th primaries and her campaign is dumping money into TV ads & phonebanking in California. Even Obama's White House is so worried that it sent its messenger Carl Berstein on the talk shows to sound the alarm:

"I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in free fall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination — which they’re no longer 100% sure of — and get President Obama out there to help her, he’s got a lot of credibility, it’s an election that’s partly about his legacy.

But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble…

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/gaius-publius-bernstein-the-white-house-is-terrified-the-clinton-campaign-is-in-freefall.html"

This shows how scared the Clinton people really are and explains the latest media freak out. They are terrified of losing California and losing it badly because they know that this is now a very real possibility. So while I agree that the superdelagetes will decide in the end, I think VT's opinion that Bernie has nothing is wrong and profoundly misinformed. Bernie’s favorability rating topped the charts at 61% compared to Hillary’s 49% and Trump’s 41%. His margins are more than 3X those of Clinton’s in a theoretical match-up against Trump. With the FBI looming over Clinton's head and increasing potential of disappointment in California, things have never looked better for Sanders. It may well be his high water mark, but it's Hillary who will be left with nothing if luck and the ballot continue to go his way.

I think Sanders is the only candidate that had anything going for him and he's certainty the only one who offers the vast majority of the American people anything other than more of the same and faster. And win or lose, Bernie has run a remarkable campaign that has changed American politics for a generation. He's exposed the bedrock of lies on which stands today's Democratic Party and for that he has my lifelong gratitude.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm not saying I'm in favor of the concept of super delegates. It's ironic that the Democrats, the party of the common man, has this many delegates who are not elected by popular vote.

But until that changes the super delegates should still support the person who wins the popular vote in the primaries. It looks like the Democratic party elite doesn't want to give up control.

The Democrat party should change this; the GOP doesn't have as "undemocratic" a problem.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/14161...rent-this-year

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman, Bernie has done a profound service by showing a grass roots campaign with no special interest money can get this close. The fact that Hillary is such a poor candidate helped. He would not have been able to compete as well against Biden or Warren.

Yes he polls much better than Clinton too, but Kasich polled best with Rubio second against Hillary in earlier polls from the GOP side. Polling better does not win nominations.

What I said was the voters have spoken and Hillary has a large lead. She will need super delegates but why should they support the second place contender? Only if Bernie can win california and New Jersey will he have a case at the convention. I think Hillary wins both unless something drastic happens. Even then they will bring in Biden or Warren.

As I've said Hillary and Trump are the two most disliked in history.

[loweyecue]

Re: Trump to win?

Aren't you ignoring the fact that Clinton has won 54% of the pledged delegates and 57% of the popular vote? Shouldn't Super Delegates support a candidate that has this wide a popular vote margin within the party?

No fan of Clinton (or anyone running this year) but Bernie doesn't have anything going for him except some late momentum. Do you want to negate the grass root voters in the party?

Not ignoring it at all. My point was the superdelegates gave Clinton such a huge advantage right off the bat that combined with poll rigging, and not allowing new voters and/or independents virtually assured her win. This math was then projected ad nauseum by CNN and other major media. Anybody watching could be easily swayed into believing they had nothing to gain by making the effort to go vote for Bernie or anyone else. Just imagine if all the Superdelegates switched sides, would people be writing off the Clinton campaign? I think not. The process is simply front loaded to support the establishment and maintain status quo

You asked why the superdelegates should vote for the second place candidate? Very fair question, and one I would like to pose to the ones who pledged support to HRC in 2008
When she withdrew from the primaries, Clinton had won 48% of the Pledged delegates but she had the pledged support from 41% of the Superdelegates
Bernie now has 45% of the Pledged delegates and he has the pledged support from 7% of the Superdelegates

You do the math on why a 3% delta in pledged delegates leads to a 34% delta in Superdelegates


http://politics.nytimes.com/election...lts/delegates/

[loweyecue]

Re: Trump to win?

Again great post. The absolute media frenzy that is currently declaring HRC the winner is both disingenuous and a strategic ploy (I am paraphrasing this article)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a..._10206250.html

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

I think the first thing that everyone should work to understand is that despite what the media reports, Hillary Clinton will not be clinching the nomination before the convention. Because math.

Clinton has 1,770 delegates and Sanders 1,500.To clinch the nomination a candidate needs 2,383 delegates. This is because there are 4,765 total total delegates (4,051 pledged delegates + 714 “super-delegates”) and 2,383 is half+1 of that number. If a candidate had that number, there would be no way for another candidate to catch up. Neither Clinton or Sanders will be getting that number of delegates before the convention. This is because superdelegates don't vote until July. The only delegates that are really available right now are the pledged delegates. Since the pledged delegates are the only real numbers we have (at the moment), those are what we should pay attention to.

To get to the 2,383 that clinches the nomination, Clinton will need to secure 613 pledged delegates out of the 781 remaining (2,383 – 1,770 = 613), which means that she needs about 78.5% (613 ÷ 781 = 0.7848) to win. Neither candidate will have won before the convention and VT is correct to point out that the super delegates will be the ones deciding the democratic nominee. Sanders, thus far, has 45.9% of the pledged delegates — and Clinton stands with 54.1%. Clinton supporters and the corporate media will tell you that it’s impossible for Bernie to win, but it's not only possible, it is growing increasingly possible as the California polls tighten up.

Right, Bernie will lose...because math. It appears that HRC will finish the campaign with ~2,156 pledged delegates, or 227 short of the 2,383 delegate goal. This means she'll require 32% of the super delegates to win. And to be clear, my maths allow for her losing both CA and my little state of NM. Bernie will not win. Bernie will, (unlike those here who will back a racist & bigot), back HRC and attempt to move the world forward from the very dark past that began with Reagan and ended with Bush II.

I know you don't agree with my narrative but I'm sure it will take us as long to move incrementally out of this hole we created as it took us to dig it. I'm focused on the Supreme Court, electing a Democrat to the Oval Office and taking back the Senate. If we get through this battle, then I'd like to focus on universal health care and a dozen other issues.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

What I said was the voters have spoken and Hillary has a large lead. She will need super delegates but why should they support the second place contender? Only if Bernie can win california and New Jersey will he have a case at the convention. I think Hillary wins both unless something drastic happens. Even then they will bring in Biden or Warren.

Because if so many primary precincts hadn't committed massive voter fraud on behalf of Clinton he might've been in first place. This primary season has been absolutely riddled with corruption, e.g. electronic voting machines throwing votes, thousands of voters purged from the rolls, precints NY that leaned heavily to Sanders drastically shortening their voting hours... They're not even making an effort to hide it anymore. Steal a thousand votes here, a thousand votes there, and the propaganda ministry keeps reporting that Hillary's the winner...

Stalin said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Right, Bernie will lose...because math. It appears that HRC will finish the campaign with ~2,156 pledged delegates, or 227 short of the 2,383 delegate goal. This means she'll require 32% of the super delegates to win. And to be clear, my maths allow for her losing both CA and my little state of NM. Bernie will not win. Bernie will, (unlike those here who will back a racist & bigot), back HRC and attempt to move the world forward from the very dark past that began with Reagan and ended with Bush II.

I know you don't agree with my narrative but I'm sure it will take us as long to move incrementally out of this hole we created as it took us to dig it. I'm focused on the Supreme Court, electing a Democrat to the Oval Office and taking back the Senate. If we get through this battle, then I'd like to focus on universal health care and a dozen other issues.

SF, please don't put words in my mouth. Nobody, not me, you, the media, HRC or Bernie knows how the campaign will finish. We have opinions, hopes and desires but no knowledge. As for the math, I don't see that you've highlighted any errors and given the fuzziness of the available numbers, I stand by my earlier calculus.

And it's not that I don't like your narrative, it's that I can't see that it is based on reality. It reminds me very much of the predictions folks made in advance of the Obama presidency. Nothing in HRC's career gives me the confidence that you seem to have. I won't bother to enumerate her roll call of infamy, as it seems to me you've reached a point of emotional investment in her candidacy and I'm not interested in irritating you.

You know Bernie will lose and I'm happy that this gives you comfort. You know Hillary will win and that she will start to dig us out of the hole and support universal health care and other things yet to be enumerated. I envy your certainty.

Me, I'm happy to admit that all I have is the hope Bernie wins. It is a hope reinforced by the reality of his incredible, unprecedented run in the face of monolithic opposition and coordination among the Democratic establishment. I say again, a Jewish socialist from Brooklyn with bad hair and ill-fitting suits has brought the HRC money and power machine to its knees, begging him to please, please stop.

If HRC was the winner you believe she is, then she would have been able long ago to defeat Sanders handily as Trump did the GOP field. She would not be in this state of desperation over the last dates on the primary calendar. Her path to the White House is dependent entirely on antidemocratic power plays and sub rosa machinations and I think barring a Sanders victory, it's exceedingly clear that your worst nightmare will take the oath of office next January.

I will be supporting the racist bigot and xenophobe with the beautiful family and ugly hair in the event the party sticks us with HRC. I will do it to stick it to the Democratic Party for sticking us with Hillary and I am in good company.

I think a Sanders presidency will re-energize the left in this country even more than his campaign and that this is where we begin to restore the balance necessary to move the world forward. I think a Trump presidency will do the same for the left, such his opposition will be. A Hillary presidency will give us more of the same and move us in the present direction faster.

I believe in attempting to prove her "toughness" and affirming her place in history, Hillary will lead us into a war that will make Syraqistan look like child's play. And if Obama can start each day checking off names from an extra-legal kill list, I don't care to imagine what terror lies in wait when Hillary feels the need to outdo him. While Hillary's War is my greatest concern, I do think it will also include an attempt by the GOP at impeachment and that it will bring about a constitutional crisis unseen in our history. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. From that perspective, there's no downside to supporting Sanders.

And unless the Democratic Party returns to its traditions, who needs it? It's clear they hate people on their left, don't want us in their party, don't count our votes when we win, and won't hear our demands, so why bother "working within the system?" They won't represent their natural and traditional constituencies, so ufck 'em. Go Trump.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Because if so many primary precincts hadn't committed massive voter fraud on behalf of Clinton he might've been in first place. This primary season has been absolutely riddled with corruption, e.g. electronic voting machines throwing votes, thousands of voters purged from the rolls, precints NY that leaned heavily to Sanders drastically shortening their voting hours... They're not even making an effort to hide it anymore. Steal a thousand votes here, a thousand votes there, and the propaganda ministry keeps reporting that Hillary's the winner...

Stalin said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

+1
'this primary season' ?
hell, its been EXACTLY like this since the summer of 2008 - when then it was ALL BAD NEWS ALL THE TIME ??

vs now: 'everything's awesome' ????

and THEN there's this:

Obama Steps In To Defend Hillary: DOJ Fights To Block Clinton Deposition

if this 'primary season' was any more riddled with corruption, the stench would be so sickening inside the whitehouse/beltway, the flies would blot out the sun!

.....
And unless the Democratic Party returns to its traditions, who needs it? It's clear they hate people on their left, don't want us in their party, don't count our votes when we win, and won't hear our demands, so why bother "working within the system?" They won't represent their natural and traditional constituencies, so ufck 'em. Go Trump.

yeah baybee!
wheres my damn crayons...