AP count: Clinton has delegates to win Democratic nomination

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things AP count: Clinton has delegates to win Democratic nomination

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
  • #20401

    The math has finally caught up to Bernie. Congrats on a great run but it’s time to step aside, endorse Hillary, and make sure Donald Trump is not elected.


    Indeed, Clinton’s victory is broadly decisive. She leads Sanders by more than 3 million cast votes, by 291 pledged delegates and by 523 superdelegates. She won 29 caucuses and primaries to his 21 victories.

    That’s a far bigger margin than Obama had in 2008, when he led Clinton by 131 pledged delegates and 105 superdelegates at the point he clinched the nomination.


    But Bernie won’t be giving up. DEMS need to admit that he is holding Hillary back at this point. Rumors are Obama had a tough conversation with The Burn today.

    Speaking of the POTUS, he is likely to endorse Clinton sometime this week.

    In the meantime Trump continues to double down on his racist themes with many high level GOP’ers letting their anger and frustration show.

    I don’t think these political conventions are going to go well for either party.


    Remember, this news is not welcome by either campaign. For different reasons.

    But, the math is the math. Bernie has been beaten on all counts. Popular vote, delegates, and super delegates.

    And let it be known the math has been known for months.

    Once the votes are counted tomorrow, Obama will come out with his endorsement and it will be over for Bernie.


    Of Course she has more superdelegates than Bernie. She started off with a TON of superdelegates before Bernie even entered the race. But thats Typical crooked Hillary, she likes to lie cheat and steal her way to the whitehouse. The fact that she had a bunch of superdelegates before bernie even entered the race is BULLSHIT!! The superdelegates are horse manure, and you have a rigged system that only benefits Crooked Hillary. This was not a fair race for the democrats, the system started off rigged for Hillary before Bernie came into the race. I cant wait tell Bernie beats her in California, even though he has no real path to the Whitehouse it atleast shows that Bernie has a lot of momentum and that Hillary Clinton still disgusts a lot of people.


    Superdelegates were created to make sure the party leaders retained some control of the process, and to make sure the rank and file didn’t go and do something stupid…like choose a an unqualified,slick-talking demagogue from out of the blue.


    1. The process, on both the Democratic and the Republican sides of the aisle, is simply the process. You can take issue with it, but you cannot claim it’s in any way rigged. Everyone knew the rules and the lay of the land well before anyone began voting for anyone, anywhere. “It was rigged”, is invariably the cry of the loser or the misinformed. A cry, I note, Donald J Trump was whining about before he found himself winning. Of course, he the cried about it some more anyway because he’s an idiot with less emotional stability than your average high school student.
    2. I.e. No-one has “cheated”. On either side of this primary.
    3. Note from reality: Hillary Clinton has more votes. Let me repeat that. More people voted for her than voted for Bernie Sanders. Period.
    4. She has more pledged delegates.
    5. She has more super delegates.
    6. Mathematically speaking, this has been over for months.
    7. She will be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency.
    8. She will win. By a lot. In no small part to the fact Donald Trump is a serial lying, racist, bigoted, thin skinned, blustering bully and boastful ignoramus.

    As for you, Dork. You are an unbelievably mendacious piece of shit.

    You don’t know a thing about the primary process for either party other than what you’ve heard other people bleat and have dutifully repeated like the vile simpleton you are. You certainly don’t care in any meaningful fashion nor have anything original or intelligent to offer in analysis. All of this metaphorical handwringing on behalf of Senator Sanders is just more disingenuous, and not even particularly clever, blathering and bull.

    If Bernie were mathematically ahead and likely to be the Democratic nominee for President you would without a doubt be spewing just as many idiotic and hyperbolic links to portray him as the Anti-Christ rather than Hillary. I mean, really. You’d vote for Bernie Sanders? Please. Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton might as well be the same candidate compared to the carnival barker the Republican primary voters have coughed up like an orange hairball.

    You’re a liar, a hypocrite, and a dip. And, you support a racist and a bigot. The former sentiments are subjective option, though bolstered time and again by your own words and massively edited postings. The latter sentiments are inarguable fact.


    Just for the sake of accuracy, we do need to remember that this system is set up for the sole benefit of the Democratic and Republican parties, not the voter. This system HAS BEEN RIGGED, somehow developed to the point that these two parties now monopolize the process. This isn’t a “Presidential Primary,” it’s a system where we are allowed to choose from what each of the two main parties props up in front of us.(Hence the dismal choice we face) A TRUE “Presidential Primary” would be open to all parties and persuasions, would be publicly funded (so as to eliminate the money advantages currently established by the Dem/GOP machine), and would be national. That’s so everyone has the same opportunity when voting. Why do we spend all of these tax dollars and have all of this infrastructure for two private political organizations? If parties want to have their own “primary elections,” they should pay for the whole process THEMSELVES, and thehn they can say who can or can’t participate, blablabla. It’s time to break this machine.


    A racist is someone who believes in the superiority of a particular race. There is no proof Trump believes that.

    As far as the definition of “bigot”–I don’t know if he falls into that category. At any rate, its definition is broad and if broadly applied would include many liberals and probably Hillary too.


    “A racist is someone who believes in the superiority of a particular race. There is no proof Trump believes that.”

    Of course he’s a racist. You don’t keep calling someone a “Mexican” after you find out that he’s a native-born American. What’s your analysis of someone that would do that. Beyond that, he believes in the superiority of Donald Trump and his “people.” Even though you adore TD, he would probably spit on you, but he might at least allow you to shine his shoes.


    “A racist is someone who believes in the superiority of a particular race. There is no proof Trump believes that.”

    By your own definition, Trump is racist.

    He believes that Judge Gonzalo Curiel will allow his Mexican heritage to bias his judgements against Trump.

    I’m quite certain that Trump would never admit that his white European heritage would ever “bias” him in dealings with people of other races or heritages.

    So, Donald thinks he is better and more “fair” than Curiel, based solely on Curiel’s Mexican heritage. That makes Donald a racist.


    It was not that long ago that Hillaty Clinton was referring to blacks as “Super preditors”, a pretty offensive remark if you ask me. Also Hillary has one of the worst syndromes known to man, she suffers from stupidity. Anyone that negligent/incompitent with her e mails and server belongs in the big house not the whitehouse.




    Indeed. You are a Trump supporter.


    Okay, so I think we’ve established that Dork does not like Hillary Clinton.

    Next topic?


    On the by and by, what you are both inelegantly and completely inaccurately referring to is from a 1996 speech. A speech I might add, you’d be completely unaware of had whatever right wing loon site you read about it on not alerted you to its inexistence.

    1. Not that long ago. Or twenty years ago. Same difference, right? As opposed to Donald Trump whom is making racist and bigoted remarks pretty much on the daily. But I digress.
    2. She did not call “blacks”, super predators in the broad manner you allege. Ergo, you’re wrong and/or deliberately lying.
    3. She was referring to urban street gangs whom showed little empathy or sympathy for their victims. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s not the most charitable or empathetic (and certainly not liberal) framing of the issue, but it was a product of its time. And, I might add, something loudly applauded by conservatives at the time. Sadly, it was (and is) very political. I.e. Any failure from the Democrats to take a hard line approach to any number of issues results in the Republicans attacking them for being insufficiently tough on crime, supportive of the military, and/or whatever.
    4. To that point, you actually don’t find the framing offensive in the least, Dork. Donald Trump has said far worse, far more recently, and with far more and very specific intent to denigrate. You’ve evidenced zero concern about any of it. So we’re supposed to believe that when the then First Lady Hillary Clinton said some tough things about gangs murdering people back in 1996, you find that sentiment troubling and somehow broadly racially insensitive? Right. Your outrage is entirely faux and entirely based upon your highly irrational, highly misinformed, and at times very misogynistic, hatred of Hillary Clinton. Who, by the way, anyone who’s not an ideologically blind loon would acknowledge is Abraham Lincoln compared to Donald Trump.
    5. Typical wingnut strategy. You have a candidate that is blatantly, glaringly, offensively racist and bigoted and therefore attempt to tar others with the same brush. I.e. We’re not the racists! You are for bringing it up! That must work well among the dumb. Everyone else sees it for what it is.

    I’d settle in for a long ride, sport.

    0.0% of the non Republican electorate is ever going to believe that Hillary Clinton is in any way racist. Donald Trump will not enjoy that same perception. He’d already loathed by wide swatches of the electorate including Hispanics, African-Americans, Muslims, the LGBT community, women, and others.

    Have fun with that electoral math.


    The Republican primaries end Tuesday with an embattled Donald Trump under pressure to tone down his rhetoric, including House Speaker Paul Ryan’s statement that the businessman’s attacks on a federal judge amount to “textbook racism.”

    Trump’s claims that a federal judge is biased because of “Mexican heritage” have been likened to Joe McCarthy-like Communist witch hunts, and have prompted pressure on Republican leaders to pull their support of the New York businessman.

    “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “If you say something that’s wrong I think the mature and responsible thing is to acknowledge it.”


Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.