2016 Presidential Democratic Primary Thread

[VDB]

So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?


eta:

And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?

Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen. 

I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . .  IF he wins the nomination.

I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."

So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.

[Hicks]

So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?


eta:

And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?

Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen. 

I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . .  IF he wins the nomination.

I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."

So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.

Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray. 

It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle. 

[sls.stormyrider]

So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?


eta:

And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?

Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen. 

I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . .  IF he wins the nomination.

I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."

So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.

Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray. 

It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle.

that's what everyone said after Obama won and the Dems took the House and Senate. The GOP took back control of Congress in no time.

[Hicks]

So pathetic to see prominent politicians (or anyone else) reluctantly say they'd support Trump, whom they hate, because they hate Clinton more. Or vice versa. If ever there was a time when it would seem sensible to stand up and embrace the idea of a third-party/independent candidate, wouldn't it be now?


eta:

And why wouldn't Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Republican, not feel emboldened enough to throw his support to former Republican and current Libertarian Gary Johnson? Does Paul really think the party would punish him for not supporting a nominee that the party itself doesn't even want? Does Paul really think Trump would be a better choice than Johnson?

Possibly the most spineless "endorsement" I've ever seen. 

I'll endorse Trump, I guess, if. . .  IF he wins the nomination.

I also love the Republicans who, when asked if they'd support Trump, merely say "I will support the nominee." "Even if that nominee is Donald Trump?" "I will support the nominee." "So you'd support Trump?" "I will support the nominee."

So either they are certain Trump will not become the nominee no matter what, or they think it doesn't really count as supporting Trump himself if you refuse to say his name.

Obviously I'm no fan of Trump, but it's been pretty awesome to watch him throw the Republican party into complete disarray. 

It's going to be tough for them to recover from this debacle.

that's what everyone said after Obama won and the Dems took the House and Senate. The GOP took back control of Congress in no time.

Eh, I didn't. 

The chaos of this election is unprecedented IMO.

[VDB]

Yeah, Palin was a joke but at least voters could blame that on just one old guy. Trump as the nominee would be a little different.

[VDB]

https://twitter.com/PoliticoKevin/status/727656924670533636

[runawayjimbo]

AP calls it for Hillary.

http://nyti.ms/1WCxOSW

Hillary Clinton Has Clinched Democratic Nomination, Survey Reports

Hillary Clinton became the first woman to capture the presidential nomination of one of the country's major political parties on Monday night, according to an Associated Press survey of Democratic superdelegates, securing enough of them to overcome a bruising challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders and turn to a brutal five-month campaign against Donald J. Trump.

Almost eight years after she ended her campaign against Barack Obama before a crowd of teary women and girls, Mrs. Clinton signaled the news to a jubilant crowd at a campaign stop in Long Beach, Calif.

"I got to tell you, according to the news, we are on the brink of a historic, historic, unprecedented moment, but we still have work to do, don't we?" she said. "We have six elections tomorrow, and we're going to fight hard for every single vote, especially right here in California."

Like Mr. Obama eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination with the support of hundreds of superdelegates — the party insiders, Democratic officials, members of Congress, major donors, and others who help select the nominee. Under Democratic rules, these superdelegates – approximately 720 in all – are allowed to back any candidate they wish and can change their allegiance any time before the convention.

Mrs. Clinton has had relationships with many of the superdelegates for years, and her campaign began seeking their support as soon as she entered the race last spring. Mr. Sanders, by contrast, has struggled to win their backing.

Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders competed most aggressively for so-called pledged delegates – the roughly 4,000 delegates that are won through state primaries and caucuses.

The Associated Press declared Mrs. Clinton the presumptive nominee by reaching out to superdelegates who had not announced which candidate they were supporting, and confirming that enough were backing Mrs. Clinton to get her to the magic number of 2,383 delegates.

The timing of the AP alert that Mrs. Clinton had reached the threshold was unusual, coming on the eve of six primaries, including the big states of New Jersey and California Tuesday.

Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, called the AP's call, "an important milestone" but indicated Mrs. Clinton did not intend to declare victory until Tuesday night when she "will clinch not only a win in the popular vote, but also the majority of pledged delegates."

Advisers to Senator Bernie Sanders took a dim view of the math. Mr. Sanders has previously said he would lobby Clinton superdelegates to shift their support to him by arguing that he is the party's best chances to defeat Mr. Trump, and he particularly plans to target those superdelegates who represent states where Mr. Sanders won primaries and caucuses. The advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Sanders was aiming to win the California primary on Tuesday to bolster his argument to superdelegates that he is the stronger and more popular candidate than Mrs. Clinton.

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer," said Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, in a statement.

"Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination," the statement continued. "She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then."

Asked on a visit to a community center in Compton, Calif. on Monday morning about being on the cusp of making history, Mrs. Clinton said, "I'm not letting myself focus on it yet," but, she said, "It's been an incredibly journey."

Indeed, becoming her party's presumptive nominee is the latest chapter in a remarkable career that has taken Mrs. Clinton from the first lady to being one election away from the from returning to the White House as president.

Mrs. Clinton planned a victory rally in Brooklyn on Tuesday, but by the time the AP called the contest, she seemed to already be in a celebratory mood, ending a campaign slog that had been expected to come to a close after the early contests but dragged on to just before the final votes were tallied, at a "She's With Us" concert at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles with John Legend, Christina Aguilera and Stevie Wonder.

Mrs. Clinton had for weeks hardly hid her eagerness to put the slog of a primary against Mr. Sanders behind her and to turn her full focus to the presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Talking to voters at the Hawkins House of Burgers in the Watts section of Los Angeles, she promised to take on Mr. Trump "all the time" and she urged Mr. Sanders's supporters to consider the consequences if the real estate developer were to capture the White House. "Anyone who's supported me and anyone who's supported Senator Sanders, has a lot at stake in this election in preventing Donald Trump from being president, which I can barely say," she told reporters on Monday.

Clinton must also work in the coming weeks to improve her own standing with voters, both with Mr. Sanders's hoards of young supporters and with a majority of registered voters who say they do not like or trust the former secretary of state.

Still, many Democratic allies of Mrs. Clinton did not want to wait until Tuesday's primaries to celebrate, writing Twitter posts and issuing statements hailing her as the nominee and trying to shift the Democratic Party's focus and the national political conversation to take aim on Mr. Trump.

"What a historic night. By nominating Secretary Clinton, we're showing that we are the party of common sense because we are the party of progress," said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, an aggressive backer of Mrs. Clinton who landed some of the toughest punches against Senator Sanders.

Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan who now advises a pro-Clinton "super PAC," said in an email: "It's beyond words; incredibly moving for me personally — but premature. We don't want to crush democracy. Still six states tomorrow whose votes must be counted. It's crucial to encourage people to vote."

[rowjimmy]

PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Campaign Statement
JUNE 6, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' spokesman, Michael Briggs, on Monday issued the following statement:

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.

"Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.

"Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump."

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-campaign-statement/

[Buffalo Budd]

The media has totally railroaded Sanders from the get go. Such a farce.

[Hicks]

The fact is the superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates and that's Clinton. 

I wish Bernie had been able to pull it off, but the reality is this has been pretty much over since he lost Pennsylvania.   

[mattstick]

Sanders' campaign has been about a democratic revolution from the beginning. Part of that revolution involves swinging the super delegates based on the will of the people.

As an outsider, it seems like he is the bravest and most remarkable US politician of my generation, fighting the nomination process until the very end further strengthens that.

[PIE-GUY]

In reality, Bernie will continue to fight until the convention - should any major revelation derail Clinton between now and then it will be really easy for the supers to just change their vote at the convention and all would be legal, up to snuff, yada yada.

Doubt that happens at this point, but you never know. FBI slaps actual charges on her over the emails and we'll all be glad Bernie hung in there to the very end.

[runawayjimbo]

Sanders' campaign has been about a democratic revolution from the beginning. Part of that revolution involves swinging the super delegates based on the will of the people.

As an outsider, it seems like he is the bravest and most remarkable US politician of my generation, fighting the nomination process until the very end further strengthens that.

Well, if it's based on the will of the people, than, as Hicks stated, they should vote for Hillary, who has a 3M vote advantage in the popular vote. What you and Bernie are saying is that the superdelegates should subvert the will of the people and vote for him. Where's the democracy in that?

If you want to say Bernie is doing the people of CA and NJ (and whoever else is voting today) a great service by allowing them to cast their votes and take part in the political process, that's fine. But I find the statements "Bernie is leading a democratic revolution" and "he should convince superdelegates to nominate him at the convention" to be diametrically opposed.

I'm probably in the minority (shocker!) in that I don't find the idea of superdelegates inherently undemocratic. They have never handed the nomination to the candidate with less delegates (in the admittedly small sample size; only the 9th cycle). And I would imagine the other party will strongly be considering adopting similar rules after this year's fiasco. But it just seems to me the amount of frustration against superdelegates is inversely proportional to the degree to which a person's preferred candidate is benefiting/getting shafted by them.

[sunrisevt]

We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.

The reason I support Bernie's campaign all the way to the convention is because his insurgency--entirely unlike the Republican primary campaign--has all along promised (and delivered as best they could, notwithstanding Wasserman-Schulz, et al) a substantive, significant debate about Democratic politics in this country.

[runawayjimbo]

We've reached peak civility and sense, everyone. I agree with both jimbo and the stickman.

Go pound sand, hippie.

There, I feel much better.

:wink: