Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

More Hillary goodness...

 

I AM TELLING THE TRUTH! YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL THE TRUTHS I TELL!

 

Did she really just fart at 35 seconds left in the video?

The part of the video where she praises Margaret Sanger didn't go into the history of M. Sanger. She was a big time racist who wanted abortions in the inner cities to rid the country of black children. Not sure why the video left that out.

 

I think the fart was doctored in there.

 

Doesn't matter. I'm running with it as being true. LOL

 

I think I'd like her a little more if she did fart there

 

Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic Primary there since John F. Kennedy,” Tapper explained. “But it looks as though Clinton and Sanders are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire’s superdelegates, these party insiders.”

Tapper then asked Wasserman Schultz, “What do you tell voters who are new to the process, who says this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?”




Makes no sense to me.

 

Wasserman is a POS

She said nothing in this statement

 

Agree. Wonder who voted her into office.

 

HHHAAAAAAAAA.. this is stupid

 

^^ I read Bernie part in his voice. LOL

 

"
Superdelegates Might Not Save Hillary Clinton
But they could tip the balance to her in a close race.
By NATE SILVER


At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton called for the nomination of Barack Obama by acclamation.

CHARLES DHARAPAK / AP

If you look at a Democratic delegate tracker like this one from The New York Times, you’ll find that Hillary Clinton has a massive 394-44 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders so far, despite having been walloped by Sanders in New Hampshire and only essentially having tied him in Iowa. While Sanders does have a modest 36-32 lead among elected delegates — those that are bound to the candidates based on the results of voting in primaries and caucuses — Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.

If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might think this seems profoundly unfair. And you’d be right: It’s profoundly unfair. Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scaleand prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders.

Here’s the consolation, however. Unlike elected delegates, superdelegates are unbound to any candidate even on the first ballot. They can switch whenever they like, and some of them probably will switch to Sanders if he extends his winning streak into more diverse states and eventually appears to have more of a mandate than Clinton among Democratic voters.

Clinton knows this all too well; it’s exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.


For the most part, these superdelegates had not previously been linked with a candidate when they pledged their support to Obama, but there were alsoseveral dozen superdelegates who switched from Clinton to Obama, including some high-profile ones such as Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Back to bad news for Sanders supporters: Clinton begins with a far larger superdelegate lead over Sanders than she ever had over Obama. It’s easy to imagine why they might resist switching, furthermore. Unlike Obama, who was perhaps roughly as “electable” as Clinton, Sanders is a 74-year-old self-described socialist. Unlike Obama, who had the chance to become the first black president, Sanders is another old white guy (although he would be the first Jewish president). Sanders wasn’t even officially a Democrat until last year. I’m not saying these are necessarily great arguments, but they’re the sorts of arguments that Clinton-supporting superdelegates will make to themselves and one another, in part because the superdelegate system was created precisely to help nominate candidates considered more electable by party leaders.

But how close would the outcome have to be for superdelegates to tip the nomination to Clinton? You can find that calculation in the table below.

How far can superdelegates get you?
IF A CANDIDATE HAS THIS PERCENTAGE OF ELECTED DELEGATES … … SHE NEEDS THIS PERCENTAGE OF SUPERDELEGATES TO WIN THE NOMINATION
58.8% ----0.0%
55.0 -------21.6
52.5 -------35.8
50.0 -------50.1
47.5 -------64.3
45.0 -------78.5
41.2 -------100.0


Superdelegates are mathematically relevant when a candidate has 41.2 percent to 58.8 percent of elected delegates. Below that range, a candidate couldn’t win a first-ballot majority even with the votes of every superdelegate; above that range, the superdelegates’ help wouldn’t be necessary to clinch the nomination.

That’s still a fairly wide range, however. In theory, for example, a candidate could lose elected delegates 58 percent to 42 percent — equivalent2 to losing the average state by 16 percentage points — and still win the nomination through superdelegates.

My guess, especially given what we saw in 2008, is that superdelegates wouldn’t feel comfortable weighing in anywhere near that much on Clinton’s behalf. In the case where she’s won only 42 percent of elected delegates, she’ll have lost to Sanders all over the map, and any conceivable “electability” gains from nominating Clinton would be outweighed by alienating at least half of the Democratic base.

If it’s closer, however, superdelegates could make a difference. Suppose that Clinton wins 47.5 percent of elected delegates to Sanders’s 52.5 percent — equivalent to her losing the average state by 5 percentage points. According to our formula, Clinton would then need only about 64 percent of superdelegates to win the nomination, a figure that seems realistic.

What you’re likely to see in close cases like these is competing claims to legitimacy, with Democratic party elites showing their bias by interpreting the evidence in favor of Clinton. Suppose, for instance, that Sanders is slightly ahead in elected delegates but slightly behind in the overall popular vote, which could happen if he overperforms in caucus states.3 Clinton supporters will argue that popular votes are the truer measure of support. More exotic options might include citing national polls (if Clinton is still ahead in them by June) or the number of states she’s won (if she’s won more than Sanders). If Clinton starts out well behind Sanders but then narrows her deficit, the elites may argue that momentum was in her favor.

It’s hard to know the exact point at which such claims go from laughable to credible, but my guess is that it’s somewhere around the 5 percentage point gap that I mentioned earlier. So superdelegates do provide some advantage to Clinton: They’ll break a true tie in her favor, and perhaps anything that can reasonably be described as a tie in her favor also. It’s just not the massive advantage implied by the delegate count so far.
"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/

 

WTF is wrong with this republican debate crowd?

Is this a presidential candidate debate, or Jerry Springer?

 

I like what Jeb Bush is saying so far

 

I think Trump is starting to show his inexperience in public debates.

 

"Ronald Reagan won this debate"

 

No surprises here. Corruption at it's core



"
The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution
Jacqueline Pine | February 12, 2016FacebookTwitter

The Democratic National Committee, headed by the massively unpopular Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has just lifted the last restrictions preventing the DNC from receiving direct contributions from Wall Street and special interest lobbyists.

Under the new rules, political action committees (PACs) and other corporate lobbyists and special interests are now free to donate unlimited sums to the DNC itself. The previous restrictions were put in place by President Barack Obama after his own election, which he marked by saying, “We are going to change how Washington works.”

He continued by affirming that corporate PACs “will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.”

These changes in the campaign finance and fundraising system of the DNC (and of the election process in general) are a cornerstone of the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who in his victory speech in New Hampshire referenced corruption in the campaign financing system no less than five times. He has also touted the fact that he has no super PACs funding his campaign and that the average contribution he receives is just $27.

However, some have speculated that these new rules will provide a boost to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts, as Clinton has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund. Sanders created his own to match Clinton’s, but it has raised only $1,000 compared to the $26.9 million raised through the Hillary Victory Fund.

This change in policy was preceded by a decision to allow PACs to donate to the annual nominating conventions, after Congress cancelled the $20 million it previously provided in federal funding to both parties’ conventions.

Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and is a harsh critic of Wall Street and vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders, was aghast at the DNC’s decision, posting a scathing Facebook post in which he accuses the DNC of being a “siphon for more corruption.”

According to today’s Washington Post, the Democratic National Committee has quietly reversed restrictions banning…

Posted by Robert Reich on Friday, February 12, 2016

Likewise, the campaign finance reform and transparency activist Fred Wertheimer expressed his profound disagreement with the DNC. “It is a major step in the wrong direction, and it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington.”

In an election season where charges of corruption run rampant and Wall Street influence is a central issue, the decision by the DNC does not just seem out-of-touch, it’s outright dangerous and potentially suicidal for the party itself.
"
http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-opens-the-gates-to-unlimited-wall-street-funding/

Even if you don't like Sanders, consider that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There's a reason the DNC is fighting tooth and nail to make sure Bernie doesn't win. They're doing everything they can to keep him out of office because they believe he won't maintain the status quo. I firmly believe this.

 

The more I think about Bernie winning the popular vote, the more I can't help but laugh that Hillary is getting the Super Delegate votes. You see, he's doing all the work and she's reaping the benefits. Socialism at it's finest. He better not complain.

 

I remember people saying the same thing about Obama.

I agree with you that they want Hillary to win. She's got people with power ($$) in her pocket. Same people that have been funding the DNC forever. Interestingly, I don't know one single person that is voting for her. Not one. I have a diverse group of friends. Bernie, Trump, Cruz, Rubio. But not one for Hillary.