world

While Sanders vows to keep fighting, Clinton wraps up nomination

71 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

With the Democratic presidential nomination effectively wrapped up....

Bam!

Stopped reading right there. Voter suppression at its best. The move yesterday by AP and NBC should, and I say SHOULD pull the curtains back for most voters revealing the dark side of the corporate/bankster/MSM/MIC/add your own/...cabal.

No wonder people are so fed up! There's supposed to be difference between a poll and an election result.

Anyone voting for Hillary after this blatant power grab should be tarred and feathered for treason.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Anyone voting for Hillary after this blatant power grab should be tarred and feathered for treason.

While I agree that the media is screwing Bernie on this, that's no reason to not vote for the better candidate in the election (which of course is Hillary, not Don the Con).

7 ( +10 / -3 )

A former first lady, senator and U.S. secretary of state, Clinton would be the first woman to become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party.

The other Party has a racist bigot, his name, Donald J. Trump.

November can't come soon enough. Trump's latest romp in the rubber room included Trump's claim his racism against a Federal Judge was the fault of those who reported the words Trump used.

Well, that may impress some Trump-aholics, but then again, these are the Americans who welcomed Trump's 'birther' racism and complain Trump's fraud "Trump University" was unfairly charged with forty million in damages from 5,000 American Citizens.

Cleveland should ask Trump to go somewhere else for his GOP-tea coronation.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Bernie is 3 million popular votes behind Hillary. How does Bernie figure to overcome that? Do the math. Bernie was soo against super delegates but is now appealing to them as a last desperate grasp. Bad loser much? Hilary had more popular votes than Obama 8 years ago and took the defeat by super delegates on the chin. Bernie needs to toughen up. He was never a democrat, if he was really serious he would have had a better organization in place. His loss is his own doing.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

that's no reason to not vote for the better candidate in the election

Better for who? The bomb makers, the banksters, the globalists, the free shit army, the MSM liars and manipulators?

And I'm sure Bernie would agree.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Better for who? The bomb makers, the banksters, the globalists, the free shit army, the MSM liars and manipulators?

All Americans, and well pretty much the rest of the world to boot. Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.

Although I read he'd legalize marijuana in all 50 states, so at least while he's destroying America everyone could just chill out.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

She has not clinched the delegates. Clinton has 1769 delegates officially secured out of 2383 needed. 719 superdelegates don't officially vote until July 25. Assuming they don't change their mind, she wins. Assuming some might, a loss is possible. I did not see any explanation on why it is tautologically impossible for superdelegates to change their mind.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Bernie talked a good game but he couldn't balance a budget and his tax plan was based on a dreamy ideal not economic realities. The get something for nothing crowd liked it but stopped thinking where their own handout ended. Good run Bernie but put the cue in the rack already. Bernie supporters need to pull their heads in or risk having Drumpf the German dictator in charge.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Stranger...is the media screwing Trump also? Similar time 10 has/is happening to Trump since day one. You can't tell me you don't see media manipulation far more prevalent against the conservatives.

Trump has been a genius using the media to his favor for the most part. Some of the comments he makes do hurt him also. If he wants the office he needs to tone it down.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Trump is getting smarter. Not talking anymore about Mexican judges anymore and calling legalization of marijuana a state issue (although he is very strongly against it personally from a moral perspective).

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/282539-trump-judge-comments-misconstrued

Trump said in the statement that he will stop his talk of the judge's impartiality. "I do not intend to comment on this matter any further," he said.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

is the media screwing Trump also?

Nope - he's screwing himself. This latest incident with the "Mexican" (really American) judge is just the most recent of so many blunders. And we don't need the media to see that, his own words damn him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA3Q9cy3Ho4

You can't tell me you don't see media manipulation far more prevalent against the conservatives.

I don't. I just see conservatives whining more about it. Just like absolutely everything. For example, you say that the media is manipulating against conservatives, then you admit right below that they aren't:

Trump has been a genius using the media to his favor for the most part.

Finally:

If he wants the office he needs to tone it down.

Too late. Everything he has said is already on record.

One thing the Republicans don't seem to realize is that while he has done great in the primaries, only Republicans have voted in the primaries.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Anyone voting for Hillary after this blatant power grab should be tarred and feathered for treason.

The authoritarian nationalist's preferred candidate, Don the con, probably agrees. It's his way or punishment, or perhaps 'I'll sue' (as long as he can get a WASP judge he's paid off to oversee the case).

Trump's endorsement by the North Korean media suggests they see him as a Kim-like leader in the making. But then I'm sure many of the white nihilists, anarchists and terminally angry who support him and who've not been able to take advantage of their white privileges want that. They want a dictator who'll take the US back to the 1950's, the days of separate but equal, the days before civil rights laws were enacted.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Clinton is not the nominee until she actually reaches the magic number, which she hasn't yet. She doesn't have the number via pledged delegates, and the super delegates won't vote until the convention.

Discussion of Trump or Mickey Mouse are off topic.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@randomnator

Bernie is 3 million popular votes behind Hillary.

This widely promoted number only includes primary voting states, and does not include most caucus states, nearly all of which Sanders won, usually by a wide margin (like Washington). Caucus states do not usually report the popular vote numbers, or at least haven't done so yet.

Funny how the media (and now online commentors) ignores this fact and just keeps repeating, repeating, repeating this wildly inaccurate number. Also funny is how most major liberal news sites (like the New York Times and Huffington Post) utterly failed to report how Bill Clinton's brother (the one Bill pardoned for drug crimes on his last day in office) was again arrested yesterday for DUI in California. One could say its irrelevant, but the guy is a minor celeb and presidential family, yet the day before the final primary its completely ignored.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

One could say its irrelevant, but the guy is a minor celeb and presidential family, yet the day before the final primary its completely ignored.

Maybe because... it's irrelevant?

Or are we guilty for the sins of our brother-in-laws? And if we are, then where does it end? Are we also guilty for the sins of the best friend of our brother-in-law's second cousin? If not, then where exactly is the line?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

HRC won the nomination fair and square. By any measure, she has won the nomination: popular vote with and without independent, delegates (no "Super Delegates), delegates plus super delegates, big state wins Democratic party demographics. Any and all way you look at the any set of numbers, HRC won.

That is a fact, and those who says differently simply do not know what they are talking about. You know what getting 45% of the vote means when the other guy, or gal, gets 51%.

It means you lose.

Despite this being very likely after Super Tuesday and completely assured -- but for a meteorite-strike extinction event scandal -- after March 15 -- Sanders chose to continue.

Which would have been fine, 'cause of something, but....

He started talking nonsense, and mislead a large group of voters. About 'momentum' and flipping super delegates. This was problematic, because 1) it was false, and 2) momentum can go f*** itself.

Its about getting a mandate and that means handily winning 'pledged' delegates = caucasus and primaries. Not the supers, which if they tried to overturn the will of the millions who voted and caucaused, would have seen a huge boycott from rank and file people like me. Oh, and BTW caucuses suck. We should dump them. And Sanders out performed Clinton there. IOW, if the primary was rigged, it was rigged in Sanders' favor. Clinton won the popular vote.

Anyways, as the inevitable logic of delegate math came to its inevitable conclusion Sanders himslef started getting nasty. He didn't condemn the bs in Nevada. He even tried for a while to float its all rigged. Sadly, it became about him. Geez, we just wasted nearly 35 million dollars in Democratic money for nothing. Sanders lost months ago.

How much money has been wasted since March 15? Money that could have gone towards helping furhter a social democratic movement?

I started all this pro-Sanders. I still am. Or rather, hope to be. It really depends on how strongly he is willing to stump for Team Dem, and help us move our party and our country towards social democracy.

I voted today in CA. And I voted for Clinton, cause she is the best choice for the Democratic Party and for America.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I am glad that it's looking like Hillary will be the nominee, since she is for the rich.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Strangerland

Maybe because... it's irrelevant? Or are we guilty for the sins of our brother-in-laws?

But zero reporting on the liberal side (also not ABC, not MSNBC), but it is reported elsewhere (like WaPo, Politico, NY Daily News)? Again, the guy is Bill's brother, not a long lost cousin (it was reported in the NY Times when he arrested for DUI the first time when there was no primary the next day).

Or maybe it will put into the spotlight what was a very obvious an act of Clinton nepotism: as president Bill Clinton pardoned the same brother for a drug dealing conviction, and did so quietly on his last day in office when the media was obviously more interested in the inauguration of Bush.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

popular vote with and without independent, delegates (no "Super Delegates), delegates plus super delegates, big state wins Democratic party demographics.

If what people are saying about caucus states not reporting popular vote, we can't know if she won the popular vote.

Any and all way you look at the any set of numbers, HRC won.

The superdelegates have not voted yet.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yet more blatant suppresion.

Steal the nomination, lose the election!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

But zero reporting on the liberal side

As I said, maybe because it's irrelevant.

Or maybe it will put into the spotlight what was a very obvious an act of Clinton nepotism: as president Bill Clinton pardoned the same brother for a drug dealing conviction, and did so quietly on his last day in office when the media was obviously more interested in the inauguration of Bush.

Ok, so Hillary is guilty of the sins of her husband? Can you please tell me where the line is, as it's unclear to me. Whose sins exactly are we each guilty of?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

rump's endorsement by the North Korean media suggests they see him as a Kim-like leader in the making.

Negative. The nk regime would just like the US bases closed on korean peninsula. The kn would also like to see the US bases closed across Japan. Wouldn't the okinawans agree to this too?

They want a dictator who'll take the US back to the 1950's, the days of separate but equal

Screw the 50's America was still great during the 80's and 90's. Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down that wall.

anarchists and terminally angry

You must be referring to mexican flag wavers who beat up people on the street, assault police officers, incite riots and damage police cars right on national TV.

the days before civil rights laws were enacted.

. . . . and when they "were" enacted, what did they do? "We got free, then we got high." -(ice cube.)

From there on all "hell broke lose" and crime sprees baffled every ghetto in American cities.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Strangerland

Ok, so Hillary is guilty of the sins of her husband?

You can not possibly suggest that Hilary is where she is today, on the verge of being the Democratic Prsidential Nominee, without her husband having been president (not just governor of Arkansas), without being Bill's first lady, without Bill's name (ever notice how for this election she has stopped using her maiden "Rodham" name?).

Is she a capable leader? Arguably yes, but she is absolutely supported by Bill's notoriety. She would be comparably unknown without him. She was not even in politics until after his presidency. Most people remember Bill as an overall good president, and that is unmeasurably helpful (Pat Nixon wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful, nor will Laura Bush). So if she's gonna keep that unbelievably useful name recognition (remember, she didn't divorce him when many expected she might), then she's gonna have to take the weight of the baggage that come with it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You can not possibly suggest that Hilary is where she is today, on the verge of being the Democratic Prsidential Nominee, without her husband having been president

I didn't suggest that - are you reading someone else's posts?

What I asked was if she is guilty of the sins of her husband, and if she is, then where does the line end? Is she also guilty for the sins of his brother? And whom else?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Steven Acosta, a 47-year-old teacher living in Los Angeles, voted for Clinton on Tuesday, saying that was partly because he believed she stood a better chance of winning in November. “I like what Bernie Sanders says and I agree with almost everything that he says,” Acosta said. “The problem is that I think Republicans would really unify ... even more against him.”

Because Republicans have never aggressively unified against Clinton? What a fool... Vote for Clinton because you like her, not because you think she'll do better against Trump, because every poll says she won't.

Bernie was soo against super delegates but is now appealing to them as a last desperate grasp. Bad loser much?

He doesn't like them, but he realizes that they're part of the current system. What he was adamantly against was the media placing them in the Clinton camp from the get go when they don't actually vote until the convention in July. Since we're stuck with super delegates, there's nothing wrong with using them. Sanders has a valid argument when he says he's a stronger candidate against Trump. Sanders consistently wins with a wider margin than Clinton in polls, and she actually loses to Trump in some cases.

There's something to be said about sore losers, but when you have a system so broken and rigged against you, you have to fight. Al Gore broke under pressure to take the "loss" with dignity and look what happened then.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As I said, maybe because it's irrelevant.

Irrelevent to Hillarys election, yes. But not irrelevent as a "strike two" topic about a former presidents brother. Maybe what supeys point is, is that it still should be reported, but the Hillary cabal ordered "No bad press" IMO

Huffington Post has no problem writing about how reagans son is not voting for trump, so why not Clintons brother? And don't forget how HP deleted a story then blocked a journalist because he wrote something negative about Hillary. I'd say HP and FOX news are the worst for their minipulation.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Caucus states do not usually report the popular vote numbers, or at least haven't done so yet.

You seriously think there were 3 million people voting in the caucus states? Yep, Bernie supporters really are reaching if that is their best prop

The superdelegates have not voted yet.

Bernie said himself he didn't want super delegates to decide the nomination "let the voters decide", BUT that was before he lost the popular vote. Now he wants polls and super delegates to cancel out the popular voters? That is pathetic. Move aside Bernie.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Because Republicans have never aggressively unified against Clinton? What a fool... Vote for Clinton because you like her, not because you think she'll do better against Trump

Yeah, this guy is sooo not focused and this guy is a teacher. Lets hope he ain't teaching gov / civics. (sheesh) And some say the Trump voters are lost.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Bernie, Clinton and Trump... To choose between them is like choosing between fire, charcoal and dynamite.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I didn't suggest that - are you reading someone else's posts? What I asked was if she is guilty of the sins of her husband

Nor did I suggest she's guilty of Bill's sins. If some might want to feel she is, that's up to them. But how can they when the story is suppressed? What I'm talking about is the willful failure of the pro-Hilary media to report a story many people would be interested in, a story that indeed may sway the vote, a story that would be another indirect bit of dirt on Hilary and another tarnished memory of Bill's presidency.

Is she guilty? Well, if we are to expect a similar presidency that was had with Bill, then are we to expect similar nepotism? Has she tried to distance herself from Bill's official record? Has she disavowed any of his presidential actions?

But sure, maybe she isn't directly "guilty", so then why fail to report Roger's DUI? Obviously its something she (and her establishment media supporters) want to hide.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You seriously think there were 3 million people voting in the caucus states? Yep, Bernie supporters really are reaching if that is their best prop

The claim is that she has the popular vote by 3 million. Without knowing the results of the caucus states, we can't know how much of the popular vote she actually has. How many people are in the caucus states is irrelevant to that fact. The fact is that the number is either wrong, or only right by coincidence.

Bernie said himself he didn't want super delegates to decide the nomination "let the voters decide", BUT that was before he lost the popular vote. Now he wants polls and super delegates to cancel out the popular voters?

Even if you don't like the game, you have to play it if you want to win.

Then after you win you can try to change the game for the better.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

is the media screwing Trump also? Similar time 10 has/is happening to Trump since day one. You can't tell me you don't see media manipulation far more prevalent against the conservatives.

Of course the media is screwing Trump and Bernie as well, Trump more so because he's running on a conservative platform that threatens liberal ideology at its fundamental core. Since the media is over 80% liberal there is an echo chamber a consensus to demonize any GOP candidate, now on one hand, Trump gives the media a lot to rant about and the other is Trump is extremely thin-skinned which helps and fuel the medias pile on with Trump.

Trump has been a genius using the media to his favor for the most part. Some of the comments he makes do hurt him also. If he wants the office he needs to tone it down.

No doubt, but one thing that drives the media wild and some my colleagues in the business is, It's not easy getting dirt on Trump and like with the late "John Gotti," he's Teflon and he keeps bouncing back. The same goes for Hillary. A very unpopular candidate, but beloved by her followers. It doesn't matter what you throw at her, her supporters will always be loyal to her and the same goes for Trump and Bernie. But Bernie has started a movement that even make Democrats uncomfortable and although he won't get the nomination, he started a movement based on heavy socialized entitlements that would never pass through congress, even if he were elected. The longer Sanders stays in the race, the more it legitimizes his movement for social progressives and that would essentially divide the Democratic Party.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

New Jersey vote counts. Too early but Longon leading in all counties.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bernie, Clinton and Trump... To choose between them is like choosing between fire, charcoal and dynamite.

Trump:dynamite. Sanders:fire. Hillary:charcoal.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

You seriously think there were 3 million people voting in the caucus states?

Umm, there were several million people voting in caucus states, few of which were put in the vote tally.

From this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/debunking-hillarys-specio_b_9972312.html

"Take a close look at Washington state, which Bernie won with 72.7% of the votes. RealClearPolitics gives him zero votes, with its 7.2 million population.

The same goes for Maine, where Bernie had a 29% spread and Alaska where he won over 81% of the vote. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In Wyoming, Bernie is given 32 votes, not 32,000. He is given 32 votes."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Supey, too bad, but that is how states have chosen to conduct their primaries - if you want to blame anyone, blame Alaska or Washington State. As it stands, here are the totals - and Clinton's lead is likely to extend today. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Trump said in the statement that he will stop his talk of the judge's impartiality. "I do not intend to comment on this matter any further," he said.

Too bad.

Racism is the only thing holding the Donald J. Trump campaign to "Make America Hate Again" together.

Hate is Trump's Brand.

Well, that and misogyny, religious prejudice, absurd claims, outright lies, condemnation of the legal process, contempt for the American People, criminalizing Disabled American Veterans, support from David Duke Holocaust Denier, a 25 BILLION dollar "Wall of Death", demanding riots, stealing millions from Americans . . . wait a tick.

Donald J. Trump has so much to offer maybe he should withdraw.

"American Losers", as Donald likes to call them, really don't deserve Trump.

Putin would welcome him, and Kim Jong Un.

Maybe Trump should go where he's really appreciated.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Black Sabbath,

HRC won the nomination fair and square.

Having the media preemptively call elections for her as early as Iowa and providing unbalanced coverage is hardly fair. Having the DNC (which is supposed to remain neutral) schedule debates at times when no one is watching is hardly fair. Not to mention the flawed and convoluted primary voting rules that differ by state and prevent many potential voters from having their say.

Sanders should have known what he was up against, but "fair and square" in a broken system is not really fair and square. You can't fix a broken system without fighting it. I'll support Clinton if she's the nominee after the convention to simply to stop Trump, but isn't the whole point of the convention to pick the best nominee? Why the rush to call a winner? There's plenty of time for party unity before November.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This "broken system" everyone is on about is the creation of fifty States doing what every State and Party in that State decides. "Broken System"? IT's called Politics. "Cry Me a River".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Maybe Trump should go where he's really appreciated.

And so should all the "illegal" Mexicans. Like, south of the border -boot n' the ass. And don't come back!

Maybe Trump should go where he's really appreciated.

And so should all the muslims, who live in the US, but actually hate the US. They'd love to see the Empire State Building collapse next. Then take a vacay back to Pakistan or Riyadh and brag about it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Good Bad StrangerlandJUN. 08, 2016 - 08:45AM JST is the media screwing Trump also?

You can't tell me you don't see media manipulation far more prevalent against the conservatives.

I don't. I just see conservatives whining more about it. Just like absolutely everything. For example, you say that the media is manipulating against conservatives, then you admit right below that they aren't:

Trump has been a genius using the media to his favor for the most part.

No admission at all only your twisting of the concept. Trump has out smarted the MSM to his advantage. The MSM is was and will be slightly liberal to flaming liberal in its reporting. Again, as with sheep the Shepard leads and they follow. You just don't get it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Clinton wraps up nomination

As an independent, non-partisan voter, I wish I could feel good about this. . . .

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

We have Bass with

This Judge is aligned with the organization "La Raza" the "RACE" they are not exactly a wam and cuddley bunch to say the least.

and then Mark with

You can't tell me you don't see media manipulation far more prevalent against the conservatives.

Tell me, Bass, do you know anything about the organization to which Judge Gonzalo Curiel belongs? Mark, much in the media has played on this story. Is that fair? I can understand that Bass would not know what he is talking about, but continued speculation of Judge Curiel's background is poor journalism.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Go Trump!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

My husband is Bernie or Bust and I can not vote in US elections.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Trump said in the statement that he will stop his talk of the judge's impartiality. "I do not intend to comment on this matter any further," he said. June 7, 2016

"Faced With Fraud Case, Trump Brings Up Judge's 'Mexican' Heritage" May 30 2016

"Trump ripped Curiel on Friday (May 27) after the judge ruled parts of internal documents, including "playbooks" regarding running the enterprise, should be released as part of a lawsuit against Trump University, which operated from 2005 to 2010."

"The playbooks, which include ones from 2009 and 2010, detail how the venture worked, how Trump University events were run and how to sell programs to customers. Curiel wrote that there is public interest in the case as Trump has become "the front-runner in the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue."

"Trump on Friday argued there was no need to schedule a trial for the Trump University fraud suit, while noting Curiel's heritage."

"The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily, everybody says it. But I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater," Trump said."

Donald J. Trump, paranoiac, narcissist, misogynist, racist, bigot, GOP-tea Candidate for the Office of the President of The United States of America and for which She Stands is an odd choice from the Party that brought America George W. Bush's yellow cake war.

Then again, as Trump is quoted in the article, "I do not intend to comment on this matter any further".

Somehow Donald J. Trump's imperious decrees, (quoted above) as a candidate, seems to say everything anyone would need to know about his racism.

The fact poor Donald, victim of his own idiocy, is now claiming he won't be so racist in the future is as much believable as his "Trump University" under prosecution for fraud.

Trump is one of those rare individuals whose contempt for Americans is only surpassed by his esteem for Donald J. Trump.

Very GOP-tea. It's wonderful when true love finds its match. (apparently the relationship is on the rocks)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Donald J. Trump, paranoiac, narcissist, misogynist, racist, bigot, GOP-tea Candidate for the Office of the President of The United States of America and for which She Stands is an odd choice from the Party that brought America George W. Bush's yellow cake war.

Well, that and misogyny, religious prejudice, absurd claims, outright lies, condemnation of the legal process, contempt for the American People, criminalizing Disabled American Veterans, support from David Duke Holocaust Denier, a 25 BILLION dollar "Wall of Death", demanding riots, stealing millions from Americans . . . wait a tick.

Twinkies and coffee is not a good idea for breakfast.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Bernie, Clinton and Trump... To choose between them is like choosing between fire, charcoal and dynamite."

This is the kind of subtle, informative analysis that I have come to expect from all commenters on the internet. Over and over, I hear analogies, similes, historical comparisons, empty conjecture, uninformed opinions, and wild theories.

In response to all that, I have narrowed down my judgment to just one question. In all seriousness, who is going to do what is best for the US? Peel away all the what ifs and maybes and pie in the sky plans and just answer the question based on a likely outcome. In short, just be reasonable. Choose as though you had invested a million dollars in the US and you want someone who can manage your investment. Who is not going to screw it all up in the first six months or the first six years?

Then the choice is easy. Crystal clear. It is Hillary or the rookie or the guy who has never done anything. Give the job to the person who can do the job. That should be the very most general criterion here, and Hillary is the only one who meets it. It is fun to wish, but wishing is for suckers. Trump and Bernie would be disasters in one way or another. That is reason enough to eschew them.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Tell me, Bass, do you know anything about the organization to which Judge Gonzalo Curiel belongs.

I do and the founder as well.

https://youtu.be/F5_u62dhkjQ

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Give the job to the person who can do the job. That should be the very most general criterion here, and Hillary is the only one who meets it. It is fun to wish, but wishing is for suckers. Trump and Bernie would be disasters in one way or another. That is reason enough to eschew them.

Spoken like a true 1%'er.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There are legitimate concerns over result differences between caucuses and direct-vote primaries. As the former are very time- and participation-intensive, they tend to draw only the more dedicated group, while the latter is a better snapshot of the general election. Perhaps a good example of this is the current results of North and South Dakota - which, while not identical, are about as close as two states can get.

Sanders won the North Dakota caucus 64.2% to 25.6%.

Clinton won the South Dakota primary 51.6% to 48.4%.

Perhaps if North Dakota had held a primary instead of a caucus, the results would have been similar. I like Sanders and would surely vote for him if he were the nominee, but the argument that his caucus victories are not accounted for in his total vote number does not hold water.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

41 percent of Sanders supporters said they would vote for Clinton if she ran against Trump in the general election.

Senator Sander's message and campaign has been about the next generation.

What Senator Sander's supporters recognize is the control of Congress and the Presidency by the GOP-tea would only further destabilize Americans' futures.

They may poll down on and HRC candidacy, but, they are no one's fools when it comes to the threat a Donald J. Trump presents to themselves and their futures.

Senator Sander's isn't a Ralph Nader. He is every bit a pragmatist with the highest ideals and no one should judge him harshly for wanting the best America has to offer for all of her Citizens.

Senator Sanders is actually one of the truly rare "politicians" of the highest ideals.

The Democratic Party is strengthened by the same character his supporters embody.

Senator Sander has a victory because he stood for what sustains America, all of her Citizens' "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Godspeed Senator Sanders.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump had a victory speech that was like his usual speech.

Hillary had a speech that was not like Trumps. It was toward everybody including republicans.

She praised Sanders for his effort of his excellent campaign.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The Democratic Party is strengthened by the same character his supporters embody.

You mean all those people who want free stuff, like EBT and free health care. What's next, free rent? And the ones who believe building bridges instead of walls are the answer? Mexico is laughing at you. Nothing is free in this world.

The (D) party and America as a whole is weakened by this.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

bass4funk: "Of course the media is screwing Trump and Bernie as well, Trump more so because he's running on a conservative platform that threatens liberal ideology at its fundamental core."

No one is screwing Trump but Trump; which doesn't really take that much, granted. You can't very well say Trump has been the success he is because of the media then turn around and say he's being screwed by the same media just because you don't like the fact that against an actual presidential figure he is getting the recognition he deserves.

Face it, guys, Clinton is your next president. Perhaps if the GOP can stop the inbreeding and infighting long enough to field a viable candidate, that may change some day. Until then...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Laguna

but the argument that his caucus victories are not accounted for in his total vote number does not hold water

Look at the RealClearPolitics link you gave. Notice Washington, Maine, Alaska, all won by wide margins for Sanders, all listing zero votes. Washington has 4 million registered voters, so assuming half are Dem or Dem-leaning Independents, and only half of them voted in the open caucus, that's a million votes that go uncounted in that "ahead by 3 million votes" by-line.

Look at Idaho, Nebraska, Hawaii -all have total votes of less than 35,000 and all have similar populations as NewMexico, but today's NM totals are going to be well more than 200,000 votes. Kansas has a 50% larger population than NM but only 39,000 total votes.

Minnesota, Colorado, and Wisconson all have close to the same populations (about 5.5million), but the caucus states (MN and CO) have vote totals of 190,00 and 130,000 but the primary state of Wisconson shows over a million.

Caucus states count irregularly. Some districts don't give total numbers. Some give only "state convention delegate" numbers (like N.Dakota today) and no popular vote numbers. So what the reporting of the known popular vote totals does is mis-represent reality and ignore the actual votes of millions of people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Face it, guys, Clinton is your next president.

Thankx to the media and her Husbands last name. What has she really done though? I really liked how she was so "on board" with Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. . . . Hillary, an ole' chip off the block.

Think the FBI will clear her?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

5SpeedRacer5,

In response to all that, I have narrowed down my judgment to just one question. In all seriousness, who is going to do what is best for the US?

The answer really depends on whether you mean corporate America or the American people. I'm not going to say either is wrong, but there's a clear difference on who you would chose.

It is Hillary or the rookie or the guy who has never done anything. Give the job to the person who can do the job.

Sanders has done more than Obama did when he was seen fit to land the job.

I think another important criterion is who can beat Trump? I honestly believe Sanders has a better chance. I think people are still underestimating Trump, and when he accuses Clinton of being a liar and deep in the pockets of special interests, right or wrong, it will stick.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That is true, Supey - but also noted what I mentioned above about the different types of voters caucus races draw over voting primaries. No one can say how the results might have differed in any case, though the Dakotas example provides a clue. At any rate, caucus states tend to be very low population. Clinton is up over Sanders in California now by some 400,000 votes, which exceeds the entire electorate of the states you'd mentioned.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No one is screwing Trump

Sorry, but you're not in the newsroom, I know many, many journalists that are in a complete panic about Trump and yes, whatever they can to keep the spotlight on Trump to make him look like an aggressor, they will do without question or hesitation. Nothing so far stuck with Trump, so once again, the liberals need, HAVE to dig in their bag of tricks and use the RACE card! It's their only shot, keep it on the topic of race, don't divert, pile on it and hope for the best. That is exactly what's going on.

but Trump; which doesn't really take that much, granted. You can't very well say Trump has been the success he is because of the media then turn around and say he's being screwed by the same media just because you don't like the fact that against an actual presidential figure he is getting the recognition he deserves.

No, I am saying, Trump has the absolute right to question the integrity and conflict of interest of this judge. A man that puts his own race first, just the name alone should give you pause, now am I saying that the judge is a racist, I don't know, just as I don't know if Trump is a racist, but Trump has the absolute right to question if the judge is bias or not, perfectly legitimate, but again, liberals won't focus on that, let's just make race the central issue once again.

Face it, guys, Clinton is your next president.

Or Trump....remember, Libs and Dems are really bad when it comes to math. Look at Congress and look at the majority of the gubernatorial races and what happened. Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps if the GOP can stop the inbreeding and infighting long enough to field a viable candidate, that may change some day. Until then...

"Inbreeding," eh? Wow!! If I would have said that about any ethnic person, I'd be in big trouble....

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

"Clinton will face a challenge to win over Sanders supporters. They have become increasingly resistant in recent months, with fewer than half saying they would vote for her if she becomes the party’s nominee, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May."

The Democrats have made a huge mistake in nominating Hillary Clinton. No wait, the Super Delegates haven't voted yet, plus the California primary and other state primaries aren't over yet, plus Hillary hasn't been indicted yet! There's still hope! Go Bernie!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Serrano JUN. 08, 2016 - 02:38PM JST The Democrats have made a huge mistake in nominating Hillary Clinton.

Your wrong. The Republicans have made a huge mistake of nominating Donald "Duck" Trump.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think people are still underestimating Trump, and when he accuses Clinton of being a liar and deep in the pockets of special interests, right or wrong, it will stick.

It's already sticking. The smear campaign is working. You're entirely right with your comments - there is a good chance Trump will win if Hillary is the nominee. She's going to have to step up her game, that's for sure. Trump runs a mean (literally and figuratively - is there a word for that?) campaign.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

She's going to have to step up her game, that's for sure. Trump runs a mean (literally and figuratively - is there a word for that?) campaign.

She will, now that she's got the nomination - but the concept of Trump running a "campaign" is farcical. He runs a marketing company to which a presidential bid is appended. Even with the free ride he'd been given since he clinched the nomination and now, he's scored more own-goals than any politician since Anthony Wiener - and remember, this was during his free-ride period. Many GOPers are already jumping ship; others speak about him as if he were an under-performing JHS student - "Don't pick on him" and "He's still learning" and "He'll get it" and this fits, as his speech itself is at the level of a fourth-grader. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340

I still have deep doubts whether he'll make it to November, much less the convention.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

After Clinton speech, she and Sanders went to see Obama. Calif. Clinton 2/3 Sanders 1/3. Others, Sanders won N D. Hillary won rest. During speech,. media reported Sanders campaign workers lost jobs. Many so I guess a majority. Not top?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

but the concept of Trump running a "campaign" is farcical. He runs a marketing company to which a presidential bid is appended.

Funny you think there's a difference. If all the Dem and Rep presidents over the last 35 years had either 1) kept their campaign/marketing promises, or 2) been exposed for the corporate/bankster middle class destroyers they were and are, I'm sure none of these three would be a legitimate contender for president.

corporate/bankster middle class destroyer...kinda has a ring to it

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Time for Sanders to convince his supporters to get behind Hillary. She's smart enough to see that he has raised important issues and if she does take that on board, the Dems will get a lot done in the next 8 years. The choice for the past 8 years has been so clear and still is now; either go forward with the Dems or backwards with the GOP.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Time for Sanders to convince his supporters to get behind Hillary.

Good luck with that. Have you seen Sander's supporters? They're petulant children, and Hillary represents everything they despise. They're just as likely to vote for Trump simply out of spite. And secondly, Sanders isn't even a democrat, he may prefer to soldier on as an independent.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"Steven Acosta, a 47-year-old teacher living in Los Angeles, voted for Clinton on Tuesday, saying that was partly because he believed she stood a better chance of winning in November."

Steven apparently hasn't been paying any attention to the polls, all of which have Sanders way ahead of Clinton against Trump.

“I like what Bernie Sanders says and I agree with almost everything that he says,” Acosta said."

And yet he voted for Crooked Hillary, lol.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So he wanted Bernie to win because he knows Trump isn't even close to being an option. Now Bernie is out of the race, he now knows the only option is Hillary........and anyone with half a brain knew this months ago.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mr. Bum

Much of the media crowned Clinton "inevitable" in 2008. She lost to Obama. The media was much more cautious this time, and yet she won. Further, while Sanders arguably -- and I mean arguably -- may have been under-covered before Super Tuesday, here is the data:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/graphic-whos-the-most-popular-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/

and here:

Further, compared to Clinton, Sanders got a lot of positive coverage once the corporate media noticed he sold papers/got clicks up until Sanders went cranky and stupid on the delegate math and started blabbing about flipping Super Delegates.

And, as I wrote, the broken caucus system actually favored Sanders, where he out performed Clinton. This is a fact.

The notion that Sanders was sandbagged by the corporate media does not sustain scrutiny. The notion that the nominating system is rigged does not sustain scrutiny.

HRC won. She won fair and square. Democrats voted for her more than they voted for Sanders. The only argument you or anyone has that the 'system is rigged' is about open v closed primaries.

I believe that since anyone can join the Democratic Party for free, it is more than fair that our primaries be closed to Democrats only. You may disagree. But the only way you are gonna change that is to join the party and fight for a rules change -- as some have done in a few states.

Tom Hartman says it best: "“Activism begins with you, Democracy begins with you, get out there, get active! Tag, you're it”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites