She's officially been called as having won California now too. Currently with a 13 point lead and 93% of the vote in. YAS.

I'm just wondering what excuse Michael will have for not changing his name.

 

I feel like he doesn't really have much choice in the matter. What was it he had agreed to go for again?

If you happen to accidentally permanently ban him and his IP while you're changing his name it's be an understandable accident that we would just leave....

If you happen to accidentally permanently ban him and his IP while you're changing his name it's be an understandable accident that we would just leave....

 

Go brush yo cheese tooth, bitch.

 

I WILL change it to whatever y'all agree on if Bernie drops out after Washington D.C's primary or if he loses at the Contested Convention.

 

 

I suppose stranger things have happened, but I really do think pressure is going to be mounting on him to drop out ASAP right now. I HOPE his meeting with Obama tomorrow ends up with accepting reality, conceding and through whatever demands he wants to make in order to do it, endorsing her.

 

Though, perhaps that's just the same kind of futile hope that Bernie fans have been feeling since March.

I suppose stranger things have happened, but I really do think pressure is going to be mounting on him to drop out ASAP right now. I HOPE his meeting with Obama tomorrow ends up with accepting reality, conceding and through whatever demands he wants to make in order to do it, endorsing her.

 

Though, perhaps that's just the same kind of futile hope that Bernie fans have been feeling since March.

 

If that happens, Bernie fans will probably turn on Obama for "saying something that will make him accept defeat" and plotting against him to get Clinton nominated. :rolleyes:

 

Last night, Bernie won Montana and North Dakota. Here are the implications:

 

(1) Bernie won 22 states, which is more than any second place finisher in Democratic Party history (and more than any Republican except Reagan in 1976). That should be enough to keep him in the race through the convention.

 

(2) The delegate math might favor Hillary, but the state math favors Bernie. Excluding the 8 virtual ties (within 1% of the vote or 1 delegate), Bernie has won more states than Hillary: 22 to her 20. He's also won more states by landslide margins (greater than 10%): 20 to her 18. No candidate in any party has ever won the most landslide victories and gone on to lose the nomination.

 

(3) The 8 virtual ties – states tied within or 1% of the vote or 1 delegate (excluding contests with a tiny number of delegates, like Guam) – are the most in the primary history of any party. It’s suspicious that the record-breaking 8 virtual ties were ALL “won” by Hillary. That 0.4%-chance occurrence points to fraud. Even if Bernie only won half of those states and NONE of the other fishy contests with larger margins, he would have won more states than Hillary.

 

(4) The estimated number of provisional ballot voters, purged voters, and caucus participants (which the media conveniently likes to forget) across all states is in the millions. If Bernie won most of those, he would have easily taken the popular vote. And statistical analyses show that if all the states had same-day registration or had been open to independents or both, Bernie would have won in a landslide.

 

In short, Bernie would have dominated a fair election, and he still can win this election, unfair as it might be. We will not let the entrenched establishment or biased media take away our democracy.

 

With that being said I'm totally Team Sanders (obviously), but, I'll be voting for Hillary if he's not on the democratic ticket.

Sanders knew the rules when he joined the race. If he wants to campaign for the party to have a uniform method of conducting primaries throughout the country, he is free to do so. For those of us on this side of the Atlantic, the variety of methods of conducting the primaries (and the Presidential vote itself) is one of the curiosities of the system.

It's a corrupt and outdated system that is now only in use to protect the 1%.

I agree it seems corrupted as an outsider looking in - super delegates and all that nonsense!

Delete Your Account.

 

Why am I laughing so hard at this! :lol:

Delete Your Account.

 

Why am I laughing so hard at this! :lol:

 

Given that Hilary's facing indictment for use of a private email address and server, she's definitely someone to take advice from regarding internet accounts.

Last night, Bernie won Montana and North Dakota. Here are the implications:

 

(1) Bernie won 22 states, which is more than any second place finisher in Democratic Party history (and more than any Republican except Reagan in 1976). That should be enough to keep him in the race through the convention.

 

(2) The delegate math might favor Hillary, but the state math favors Bernie. Excluding the 8 virtual ties (within 1% of the vote or 1 delegate), Bernie has won more states than Hillary: 22 to her 20. He's also won more states by landslide margins (greater than 10%): 20 to her 18. No candidate in any party has ever won the most landslide victories and gone on to lose the nomination.

 

(3) The 8 virtual ties – states tied within or 1% of the vote or 1 delegate (excluding contests with a tiny number of delegates, like Guam) – are the most in the primary history of any party. It’s suspicious that the record-breaking 8 virtual ties were ALL “won” by Hillary. That 0.4%-chance occurrence points to fraud. Even if Bernie only won half of those states and NONE of the other fishy contests with larger margins, he would have won more states than Hillary.

 

(4) The estimated number of provisional ballot voters, purged voters, and caucus participants (which the media conveniently likes to forget) across all states is in the millions. If Bernie won most of those, he would have easily taken the popular vote. And statistical analyses show that if all the states had same-day registration or had been open to independents or both, Bernie would have won in a landslide.

 

In short, Bernie would have dominated a fair election, and he still can win this election, unfair as it might be. We will not let the entrenched establishment or biased media take away our democracy.

It's very strange that you're saying this is undemocratic and unfair, when calculating on the basis of 'how many states were won' is itself an undemocratic and unfair way of calculating a winner - it biases results towards smaller states, rather than towards the actual democratic result of how many votes a candidate won.

 

All of the above are not measures any self-respecting democratic system would use to decide the winner. The winning candidate in this primary got nearly 4 million votes more than the second placed candidate. The winning candidate got over 300 more pledged delegates than the second placed candidate - delegates that were allocated proportionally.

 

The eight virtual tie point is bizarre - for a start, it made no difference in terms of delegates, but also it isn't how probability works, because elections aren't like flipping a coin. If it was, yes, it would be suspicious. It isn't that suspicious that a candidate that won nearly 4 million votes more than the other candidate generally won in close contests. Defaulting to an assumption of fraud is a huge leap - what exactly did the Hillary camp do? If they could do it for all those states without anybody noticing the fraud, why didn't they do it for all the states? How did they know ahead of time all of the states were going to be so close they could get away with X number of faked votes?

 

The only relevant point in the above for 'the winner has been decided unfairly' is number 4. But it ignores that where primaries have been held afterwards in caucus states (such as Washington), Hillary stormed them, and Bernie dominated the less accessible caucuses which needed people to hang around for hours rather than just voting. Had every state been a primary it's unlikely Bernie would have done as well in those as he had done in caucuses, as seen by Hillary winning primaries where Bernie-won caucuses had already been held. If anything, Hillary would likely have been further ahead had every state been an open primary. Arguably the caucus system is the one that's outdated. I don't think either could be described as corrupt - superdelegates may feel corrupt, but for a look at how they're useful, look at how the Republicans are having to contort themselves to back Trump and how much that'll damage them. It's unlikely a Democratic primary will produce a candidate that the party absolutely can't get behind. A superdelegate system probably would have stopped Trump.

22 states vote for a self proclaimed socialist in the democratic campaign and 46% of the democratic convention - LISTEN UP HILARY, LISTEN UP AMERICA!!

I doubt you'd be calling it something the winner had to listen up to if the moderate candidate got 43%.

Elizabeth Warren comes out in support of Hillary. While I can't help but think that having her on the ticket might not be the best idea, getting her endorsement is a big deal.

It's very strange that you're saying this is undemocratic and unfair, when calculating on the basis of 'how many states were won' is itself an undemocratic and unfair way of calculating a winner - it biases results towards smaller states, rather than towards the actual democratic result of how many votes a candidate won.

 

All of the above are not measures any self-respecting democratic system would use to decide the winner. The winning candidate in this primary got nearly 4 million votes more than the second placed candidate. The winning candidate got over 300 more pledged delegates than the second placed candidate - delegates that were allocated proportionally.

 

The eight virtual tie point is bizarre - for a start, it made no difference in terms of delegates, but also it isn't how probability works, because elections aren't like flipping a coin. If it was, yes, it would be suspicious. It isn't that suspicious that a candidate that won nearly 4 million votes more than the other candidate generally won in close contests. Defaulting to an assumption of fraud is a huge leap - what exactly did the Hillary camp do? If they could do it for all those states without anybody noticing the fraud, why didn't they do it for all the states? How did they know ahead of time all of the states were going to be so close they could get away with X number of faked votes?

 

The only relevant point in the above for 'the winner has been decided unfairly' is number 4. But it ignores that where primaries have been held afterwards in caucus states (such as Washington), Hillary stormed them, and Bernie dominated the less accessible caucuses which needed people to hang around for hours rather than just voting. Had every state been a primary it's unlikely Bernie would have done as well in those as he had done in caucuses, as seen by Hillary winning primaries where Bernie-won caucuses had already been held. If anything, Hillary would likely have been further ahead had every state been an open primary. Arguably the caucus system is the one that's outdated. I don't think either could be described as corrupt - superdelegates may feel corrupt, but for a look at how they're useful, look at how the Republicans are having to contort themselves to back Trump and how much that'll damage them. It's unlikely a Democratic primary will produce a candidate that the party absolutely can't get behind. A superdelegate system probably would have stopped Trump.

 

Not ashamed to admit you present valid points.

 

I'm still salty, though. Its not fair to call a states election, when over a million provisional ballots have yet to be counted. Its also not fair to tell people they aren't allowed to vote for minuscule reasons. Many independent voters were turned away to vote on the democratic ticket. And where are Bernie's strongest numbers? With independants. Regardless, our voting system is corrupt and I do not trust it. And I like Hillary, just prefer Bernie... My issue is not with the candidates, but, with the people handling the voting numbers. Those same places are funded by big corps and let's not pretend she isn't friendly with aligning herself with them.

Edited June 15, 20169 yr by Tyler

Fair! But Hillary will still be a step towards making that better. She's still committed to overturning the Citizens United ruling.

There is such strong opposition to her over the email scandal, it low key scares me as well.

 

I'm scared regardless, I'm surrounded by idiots. :( If Trump wins we are going to get set back 20 years, and that's being positive over it. As much as I can appreciate the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, voting for them is like throwing your vote in the trash. And a lot of Bernie supporters are planning to vote with them even if Bernie officially endorses her.

 

We need Sanders as a Vice President in order to bridge that gap, or at least a prominent position to bring those numbers to the democratic ticket.