In this thread, we post r/S4P reactions to tonight's news

[Deblano]

Okay, first, I'm going to try reasoning with them. If that doesn't work, let's all bern the subreddit down. It'll be fun.

They are going to bern it 1968 style. It's how radicals like them operate.

Anyways here is another comment...

"Just another way to try to stop people from voting.

Man, if you have to suppress so many votes, you are admitting that you are a WEAK CANDIDATE

LetThePeopleVote"

[Wells]

Oh my god, I found an actual socialist advocating for an actual armed revolution.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IF WE JUST KEEP THROWING MONEY AT HIM, WE WILL MAGICALLY CHANGE REALITY!

[This account no longer in use.]

Okay. I'm going to make one post about the differences between Trump and Sanders. If it gets upvoted, then that's okay. If not, then you guys can troll all you want.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think Bernie should lose the nomination because he's going to lose in pledged delegates, but I think that this type of reporting, or at least the outlets who fail to report that superdelegates can change their vote, is sketchy/lame. 

It's totally cool to say that it appears Clinton is the presumptive nominee or that she is almost certainly the nominee, but the fact that she won with changeable supers needs to be mentioned and often isn't on many outlets.

So the November election shouldn't be called until December because electors in some states could change their votes en masse and elect the loser?

Pledged electors can go to jail or be fined for being faithless.  Pledged delegates can have their first ballot votes invalidated.

Superdelegates face no such penalties/restrictions.

It's a pretty minor point this year though, because it's basically impossible for Sanders to win with pledged, so who cares.  I do have a lot of students who are really confused by superdelegates and why the counts on different websites are different, so I think the media has some responsibility to educate its consumers/citizens.

[Admiral Kizaru]

Okay, first, I'm going to try reasoning with them. If that doesn't work, let's all bern the subreddit down. It'll be fun.

lol you'll just get downvoted to hell. Happened to me a few times on there and on r/politics.


also

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Megalolz.

[7,052,770]

I think Bernie should lose the nomination because he's going to lose in pledged delegates, but I think that this type of reporting, or at least the outlets who fail to report that superdelegates can change their vote, is sketchy/lame. 

It's totally cool to say that it appears Clinton is the presumptive nominee or that she is almost certainly the nominee, but the fact that she won with changeable supers needs to be mentioned and often isn't on many outlets.

So the November election shouldn't be called until December because electors in some states could change their votes en masse and elect the loser?

Pledged electors can go to jail or be fined for being faithless.  Pledged delegates can have their first ballot votes invalidated.

Superdelegates face no such penalties/restrictions.

In some states, but not all or even most of them.

In 2012 there were enough Obama electors that could have theoretically voted Romney and handed him the election with no legal punishment whatsoever. By your logic, the media was wrong to declare Obama the winner of the general election because it's "possible" that electors could have handed the election to Romney, or anyone else for that matter.

[This account no longer in use.]

Surprisingly enough, nothing seems to be going too bad yet. But 'yet' is the key word here.

[7,052,770]

It's interesting how many people there are insisting they prefer a Trump win to a Hillary win.

[IceSpear]

Surprisingly enough, nothing seems to be going too bad yet. But 'yet' is the key word here.

I've noticed that as well. The reactions so far are actually surprisingly low energy and lame. I've seen much, much worse just from browsing there randomly at times due to boredom.

[IceSpear]

It's interesting how many people there are insisting they prefer a Trump win to a Hillary win.

It's even funnier when you realize a large chunk of them were Paulbots in 2008/2012 (and maybe even 2016.)

[This account no longer in use.]

Never mind.

"The media is manipulating people into staying home because they think Bernie has already lost. I know Trump is not the answer but it appears that no matter what Hillary is going to win because the media and the DNC are manipulating people. I hate this process and at this point I feel like my vote didn't even matter. The fix was in. Hate is not a strong enough word for how I feel about Hillary Clinton."

[Wells]

There's an idiot saying he won't rally behind Clinton because she's the weaker candidate.

[Wells]

According to one Sanders supporter, "it will require blood." I don't know exactly what it was about, but it looked like something about the 1%.

[Chief Justice Keef]

The main argument I've seen on the subreddit is that Clinton hasn't clinched yet because the superdelegates that have endorsed her haven't technically voted yet.

Honestly, the only way we see a massive shift in Clinton's super-delegates towards Bernie is if she's indicted or Sanders wins by like 40 points in every state tomorrow. The latter is definitely not happening, and with each passing day the former's chances of happening grow slimmer.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

According to one Sanders supporter, "it will require blood." I don't know exactly what it was about, but it looked like something about the 1%.

You guys are in for one hell of a convention regardless if Bernie stays in; can Hillary get a medium to reach Richard Daley in hell?

[YaBoyNY]

As if we needed another reason for why Reddit is a garbage-tier website.

[IceSpear]

According to one Sanders supporter, "it will require blood." I don't know exactly what it was about, but it looked like something about the 1%.

You guys are in for one hell of a convention regardless if Bernie stays in; can Hillary get a medium to reach Richard Daley in hell?

Don't get your hopes up. 99.9% of these Reddit tykes won't be leaving mom's basement to protest in Philly.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think Bernie should lose the nomination because he's going to lose in pledged delegates, but I think that this type of reporting, or at least the outlets who fail to report that superdelegates can change their vote, is sketchy/lame. 

It's totally cool to say that it appears Clinton is the presumptive nominee or that she is almost certainly the nominee, but the fact that she won with changeable supers needs to be mentioned and often isn't on many outlets.

So the November election shouldn't be called until December because electors in some states could change their votes en masse and elect the loser?

Pledged electors can go to jail or be fined for being faithless.  Pledged delegates can have their first ballot votes invalidated.

Superdelegates face no such penalties/restrictions.

In some states, but not all or even most of them.

In 2012 there were enough Obama electors that could have theoretically voted Romney and handed him the election with no legal punishment whatsoever. By your logic, the media was wrong to declare Obama the winner of the general election because it's "possible" that electors could have handed the election to Romney, or anyone else for that matter.

It's not against the rules for SDs to switch, while it is for PDs and PEs, even if they might not be punished.

Also, historically, SDs have switched with much greater frequency and consequence.

[Crumpets]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[quote]- He seems incredibly focused on California. He's been saying that if he wins Cali, he'll win the nomination. I don't get it myself, it really seems like he knows something no one else does.

--I think it's because CA is by far the biggest delegate state and also it is unlikely he will win NJ so focusing on it would just lead to disappointment. So they are lowering expectations in a way, but I'm sure the campaign is working hard there to get as many votes as possible, just not making a lot of noise because they don't want to NJ to look like a "failure".

---It's because he knows that the likelihood of Hillary being forced to drop out because of her email scandals is very high, and so he needs to notch some huge wins so that the temptation for the DNC to force Biden in there is a non-starter.

----That's probably the most likely explanation. I've been talking in a group about the e-mails, and some of them are convinced that when Bernie met with Obama way back at the beginning of the primary he told Bernie basically that, and that's why he's been the way he is. But that's purely speculation and probably crazy talk.
Regardless, I get the feeling he's got info on the FBI investigation few others do, and that's why he's been so insistent on staying until the end regardless of delegates.

-----Honestly, you don't need any info that no one else has to see what's going on. It's all right there, in the public sphere - it's just the MSM isn't talking about it. (The grotesque right-wing media IS talking about it, but you can be forgiven if you're not up on Breitbart.)The IG report (which comes from Hillary's own state department) was totally damning. Combine that with the FBI giving witnesses immunity - I mean, this is open and shut.

------Yeah, I totally agree. It was open and shut prior to the OIG report, but after? Oh man. That really shut down any opportunities she'd get out of it scot-free.
He's probably been hanging in because he knows there's a chance Hillary won't even make it to the convention. If he drops out, and then she does as well, he won't have a chance.

-------Exactly.
Prior to the OIG, I thought there was a chance it was just right-wing media hoopla, like Whitewater or Benghazi - maybe a bit unsavory, but not remotely warranting the attention it got. But after her own State Department utterly condemns her actions? Castle Clinton is on its last legs.

--------I read the OIG report a different way. It felt like he was basically saying that Hillary should have known better, but that it wasn't a criminal act nor was it something that should result in jail time.
I know he didn't use those words, but that was the tone of the report, from my own perspective.
What worries me is that the FBI could indict a few of her aides or even some people very close to her, but ultimately not indict Hillary (because she put enough people between her and the server) and that people will still ing say we need to rally behind her.
They'll call us sore losers, they'll say we're clinging on to the negatives, that we're bringing Hillary down.
This is what I'm scared of: Nothing short of an indictment will stop her.

---------who the f*** cares what they say about us? f*** them and f*** "i heart pedofile sex traffickers" clinton for saying we're toast today. not saying bernie was toast, but us, bernie supporters are toast.
i will never tell someone how to vote, but i can assure you that if you've kept telling me you don't want my vote, I'll take you at your word, and not vote for you.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At least we can sit here and laugh, because it's physically impossible for someone to "stay home" and not vote tomorrow when their ballots have already been mailed in and counted.

[Crumpets]

Just saw these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cruzcrew]

According to one Sanders supporter, "it will require blood." I don't know exactly what it was about, but it looked like something about the 1%.

LOL I should make a Reddit for this

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. Calling speculation and his own ignorance about the legal system "open and shut". It's funny how when you don't like someone, the bar gets so much lower for this type of stuff.

[publicunofficial]

You must be logged in to read this quote.