AP: Hillary Clinton has delegates for Democratic nomination

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I very much get that part but what credentials does one need to remain a delegate? Going to have to peruse the interwebs I suppose.

More establishment grandfathering. Not the voice of the people, terribly sad. Thanks for the reply.

a reply to: Swills

She wasn't awarded them. These people are saying they will vote for her. They made up their own minds. Sanders is thinking that somehow he can get these 572 people to just flip over to him after they've already committed to Clinton. It's absurd that he thinks this.

a reply to: Olivine

She's not acknowledging it . Her campaign says that there's still work to do. These states tomorrow need to have their say too. So much for that.

Associated press said it after the weekend contests and speaking to superdelegates who had not said who they were going with. Many uncommitted supers said they are now committed to Clinton. Then nbc picked it up.

Tomorrow's primary is still on. Bernie supporters still have a voice.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Swills

She wasn't awarded them. These people are saying they will vote for her. They made up their own minds. Sanders is thinking that somehow he can get these 572 people to just flip over to him after they've already committed to Clinton. It's absurd that he thinks this.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. All that's needed is an indictment lol and that Hillary thing is toast. Long time and the indictment can pop up any time before July 25th, even up to the 28th, nudge nudge, wink wink ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Silly hopes. That's not happening.

God help us all. The evil is slithering through the slime of corruption which got her to this point.
Hopefully the light of justice will prevail and she will be indicted before the darkness takes hold.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In order to be a former office holder, you have to have been elected to office. It's a perk for having made it in the first place, and one of the powers you're voting to give that person.

Think super delegates can change their decisions until sometime in July when they vote, so technically Bernie is still in it. He won't win, but is not entirely out yet. It is still possible for him to sway some delegates away from Hillary.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You're either lying or ignorant to deny that Clinton had courted Supers before the race and had their support before, at the start, up to present day.

Can one of you explain to me what your problem with this is?

If you think the process isn't democratic.. and that Bernie should be the candidate.. then most assuredly there should be some primary "democratic" metric that supports him right?

Wait... there isnt?

That's right because..

Hillary is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million
Hillary has the majority of pledged regular delegates
Hillary has the super delegates

I would understand the Berners' argument if he were winning the popular vote and losing the delegate count... or if he were winning the regular delegate count but Hillary beat him with superdelegates..

But he isnt winning in any facet of this race

Democrats have spoken who they want to represent the Democratic party. It's Hillary.. plain and simple.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Can one of you explain to me what your problem with this is?

If you think the process isn't democratic.. and that Bernie should be the candidate.. then most assuredly there should be some primary "democratic" metric that supports him right?

Wait... there isnt?

That's right because..

Hillary is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million
Hillary has the majority of pledged regular delegates
Hillary has the super delegates

I would understand the Berners' argument if he were winning the popular vote and losing the delegate count... or if he were winning the regular delegate count but Hillary beat him with superdelegates..

But he isnt winning in any facet of this race

Democrats have spoken who they want to represent the Democratic party. It's Hillary.. plain and simple.

Well seeing is to how there are around 8 million in California alone who have yet to vote, I'd say that's what the big deal is.
www.latimes.com...

And so it begins. . . . .

Beware, "The Hillaring."

So it's literally going to be a race between the "turd sandwich" and the "giant douche"! My only question is which one is who? I saw Hillary on TV for 5 minutes and had to change because her voice makes me cringe. The idiots that were standing behind her looked like tranqed out zombies.

Bernie and CNN commented on this on Friday, they quite clearly said that there is no winner yet as the delegates arent counted until the convention and anyone declaring her the winner is doing it incorrectly.

Obviously, those declaring her the winner want her to win, they're biased and they hope by them saying it in the public forum it will persuade people to think she's actually won

Its really win win for people.

If Hilary gets the nomination, Trump will destroy her - Trump president.
If Bernie gets the nomination, Trump will lose to him - Bernie president.

For a change, we the people are in the box seat!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Hilary has it, it has nothing to do with what the media is saying right now. She's winning the election on every metric, the super's aren't going to switch to Bernie without some serious news on the legal front. If she takes a mere 20% of the vote in each of the remaining states she gets there, even without these new supers.

The fight wasn't fair, I would have preferred Sanders personally but at the same time I just see it as a sign he wasn't worthy. Politics is never fair, I expect any candidate to be able to win an unfair fight in order to get a shot at the office, and they all do. It's not like other countries will play fair with us in negotiations. Sanders couldn't do it.

a reply to: Aazadan

With all the relatively compelling pieces of evidence pointing towards some sort of fraud behind the scenes (almost mathematically impossible divergence of exit polls vs. final results) along with the super delegates, along with the obviously biased and corrupt media, along with the obviously biased and corrupt DNC I'd say it was a bit more than just "unfair." Remember when Sanders supposedly "hacked" Clinton's database, and then magically people who'd only ever given their email to Sanders started getting Clinton emails? That's another interesting spot of weirdness, too.

"Unfair" is playing checkers against someone who starts out with all their pieces being crowned, or a game of chess against someone with queens instead of rooks. This is closer to playing a game of checkers against someone, then they shoot you.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Can one of you explain to me what your problem with this is?

If you think the process isn't democratic.. and that Bernie should be the candidate.. then most assuredly there should be some primary "democratic" metric that supports him right?

Wait... there isnt?

That's right because..

Hillary is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million
Hillary has the majority of pledged regular delegates
Hillary has the super delegates

I would understand the Berners' argument if he were winning the popular vote and losing the delegate count... or if he were winning the regular delegate count but Hillary beat him with superdelegates..

But he isnt winning in any facet of this race

Democrats have spoken who they want to represent the Democratic party. It's Hillary.. plain and simple.

It is sad that the actual DNC representative (Hillary) is limping their way to a lackluster victory against someone who until this election cycle wasn't even a member of the D-party.

Hillary's business ( err "charity" ) partners like Haim Saban are billionaire tax dodgers (to the order of an IRS fine of 250 million / wife sits on Clinton "charity" board), Epstein ( convicted pedophile ), Victor Dahdaleh ( indicted for corruption and bribery in Europe and got off because witnesses failed to show while his business partners are convicted), Marc Mezvinsky her son in law and ex-Goldman-Sachs trader ( and a failed hedge fund magnate ) further cementing Clinton's wall street ties, Bill Clinton making millions off of for-profit education universities (several have had their licenses revoked), Robert Kagan of PNAC (project for a new american century AKA bombing the middle east until they submit diplomacy) endorsement and hiring his wife to handle her action in the Ukraine (that went well . . .), George Soros funding ( VERY LARGE CARLYLE GROUP INVESTOR ), only changing her public stance on the TPP and TTIP once she realizes she is loosing to a non-Democrat in the Democrat primary . . . .

She essentially stands for everything the self-proclaimed Democrats I speak with hate.

There is a large enough block that I could absolutely see why they feel justified calling for a contested convention, even if just as one last symbolic gesture of their disgust with a candidate who embodies stereotype of corrupt politician.

But of course others likely disagree.

-FBB

PS
I do not vote, so I endorse any candidates.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

And if you're diabolical enough to hold the position I expect you to be able to deal with the opponent pulling out a gun to shoot you. I have pretty high standards for anyone in an authority position, so there's no sympathy for someone who couldn't make it. Like I said, I would have preferred Sanders he had the much better policies. A lifetime in politics wasn't enough for him to fight back though, largely because he kept to a clean campaign, which is something of a character flaw when it costs you the win.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Can one of you explain to me what your problem with this is?

If you think the process isn't democratic.. and that Bernie should be the candidate.. then most assuredly there should be some primary "democratic" metric that supports him right?

Wait... there isnt?

That's right because..

Hillary is winning the popular vote by almost 3 million
Hillary has the majority of pledged regular delegates
Hillary has the super delegates

I would understand the Berners' argument if he were winning the popular vote and losing the delegate count... or if he were winning the regular delegate count but Hillary beat him with superdelegates..

But he isnt winning in any facet of this race

Democrats have spoken who they want to represent the Democratic party. It's Hillary.. plain and simple.

Hillary was winning the popular vote only in the sense that Sen. Sanders won more heavily in caucus states...where the population isn't given an opportunity to vote...and California votes today.
She doesn't and wont have enough pledged delegates to be the presumptive nominee.
Superdelegates are a poll until they vote.
Shame on the AP for calling this race on the eve of a Super Tuesday. Shame on Clinton for attempting to steal what she hasn't won, especially while under an increasingly serious investigation by the FBI. This boneheaded move to attempt to take what isn't theirs...yet, will be viewed as stealing an election because you couldn't wait to win fairly. This grab will only confirm what Sanders' supporters have been saying, that the deck was stacked. Worst idea ever when you need to unify a party.

Man, both parties have completely stepped in it this time. What a stupid, stupid, stupid move to call this now.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

If n I'm not mistaken, there's been states where Hillary has won the popular vote.. but Bernie has taken the delegates due to caucases. Isn't that a little messed up?