CLINTON CLINCHES

[°Leprechaun]

Really, no matter what happens, it would make sense for Obama and others to wait until DC votes, to endorse, but at least he has the decency to wait until after today. As I understand it Biden, Gore, and Carter (all super delegates) have not endorsed yet. Good for them.

Twenty four hours from now things will become much more settled.

[°Leprechaun]

CLINTON.
IS.
NOT.
CLAIMING.
VICTORY.

Seems like some people really are bad at reading.

If that is true, good for her. I thought that she had. The media however are calling her the presumptive nominee prematurely, though, bad for them. They care about making money and have give a lot of coverage to Trump.

[emailking]

NBC declares Clinton nominee!

It's so sweet that it was Chris Hayes who had to make the announcement.

Huh?

His show is on right now, and he's been consistently one of the most pro-Sanders people on MSNBC. I guess I should have made it clear I was talking about MSNBC in terms of the announcement, not NBC proper although that's where the call came from.

Interesting, I've never felt that.

Same here. He's obviously a liberal and seems to like both of them, but I've never felt an indication of preference for one or the other. He's certainly realized that the primary has been essentially over for a while now, even if he can't say it explicitly.

[emailking]

The super delegate system is crazy, Democrats would be wise to change it. If the race were more than two people that would be different since it would be possible for nobody to get a majority on the first ballot.

So let the superdelegates vote on things like rules and platform but they can only vote on the nomination in the case that no one gets a majority of pledged delegates? I guess that makes some sense.

[°Leprechaun]

The super delegate system is crazy, Democrats would be wise to change it. If the race were more than two people that would be different since it would be possible for nobody to get a majority on the first ballot.

So let the superdelegates vote on things like rules and platform but they can only vote on the nomination in the case that no one gets a majority of pledged delegates? I guess that makes some sense.

Actually, there is no need for having them in the first place. I do like the fact that nobody can get either the Democratic or Republican nomination without a majority. This is much better than general elections where a plurality of as little as 40% or less can win. This is what causes the so called "spoiler effect". Nader was unfairly called a spoiler in 2000.
I say unfairly because he favors IRV.
He is not the one that spoils all elections. the Democrats and Republicans by refusing to endorse IRV or something else that would negate the plurality rule and would fix the so called spoiler problem are responsible.

Why require a majority for the nomination but not the general election? It makes no sense.

[emailking]

Well I think ideally there wouldn't be primaries at all and there would just be one election with an effective ranking system (e.g. IRV).

But given that we're going anywhere near that anytime soon, I think requiring a majority is good as it allows at least some sort of runoff system. We sort of do that in the general election in that you need a majority of electoral votes. But unless you have 3 candidates very close together in support, it does essentially become a plurality system.

Whether you have superdelegates make the decision or just unbind the delegates on the 2nd ballot, it's still undemocratic because the voters never got to express any kind of 2nd or 3rd choice, etc.

[°Leprechaun]

Well I think ideally there wouldn't be primaries at all and there would just be one election with an effective ranking system (e.g. IRV).

But given that we're going anywhere near that anytime soon, I think requiring a majority is good as it allows at least some sort of runoff system. We sort of do that in the general election in that you need a majority of electoral votes. But unless you have 3 candidates very close together in support, it does essentially become a plurality system.

Whether you have superdelegates make the decision or just unbind the delegates on the 2nd ballot, it's still undemocratic because the voters never got to express any kind of 2nd or 3rd choice, etc.

You could require super delegates to vote for the winner of their state on the first ballot. Not ideal, but more "democratic" than letting them vote however they wish.

[Joe Republic]

i'd imagine that's something that they'd prepared in advance; like any sensible campaign would - I'm sure that Bernie has something prepared like that if he somehow manages to win 80% of the vote everywhere tonight and get a pledged delegate majority since that's sensible, its always good to be prepared for every eventuality.  Was it a "scumbag move" that Romney had a transition website (and probably more things that we never saw) prepared in advance of the last Presidential election?

Speaking of Romney, he never prepared a concession speech. That kind of kills the argument that every Presidential campaign is prepared for every possibility.

Obvious lie was obvious.  It's the type of thing candidates say to save face, like "I have no plans to be anybody's running mate", or "I'm staying in all the way until the convention!" the day before they drop out.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Take a chill pill, jfern.

[Rick Grimes]

BEAUTIFUL!

yes but this could be bad because clinton called out the mormon mafia but they hate trump so who knows who they will swing for and try to muddy the waters with.