2016 United States Election

[Dave_LF]

There's a difference, though, between being technically correct and being honest. Technically, Trump hasn't won his party's nomination either. Technically, we don't have a President-elect until the electoral college meets and votes, regardless of what happens on election day. Technically, nothing is ever 100% certain, and we're all simply doing our best to find coherence in a sea of likelihoods and probabilities. But, at some point, you have to be able to state a position as a fact, leaving the endless trail of technical disclaimers unstated and understood. If we're not quite to that point with Clinton yet, we're awfully, awfully close.

[Cerin]

Technically, Trump hasn't won his party's nomination either.

Trump has won the number of pledged delegates necessary to secure the nomination, and therefore it is honest and accurate to say that he has clinched his party's nomination. If Clinton had won the number of pledged delegates necessary to secure her party's nomination, then it would be honest and accurate to say that she has clinched the nomination. She hasn't done that. Super delegates don't have a voice in the process until the convention. The super delegates will decide this nomination, but they can't do it until the convention.

But, at some point, you have to be able to state a position as a fact <snip>

Yes, at some point -- in about a month and a half -- it will be a fact that one of the democratic candidates has won their party's nomination. I don't see the difficulty, technical or otherwise.

[yovargas]

A football team winning by 4 touchdowns with one minute left hasn't technically won yet either but everyone knows you can call the game over anyway.

[/sports analogies]

[JewelSong]

But maybe this political race is more like a baseball game, where no matter what, you get your last inning and anything...ANYTHING...can happen. Even with the home team down by 7 runs with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

Nah, my analogy is better.

[Cerin]

A football team winning by 4 touchdowns with one minute left hasn't technically won yet either but everyone knows you can call the game over anyway.

[/sports analogies]

Have you ever seen announcers declare a winner before time has run out? Have you ever seen points put up on a scoreboard before a team has scored them?

[yovargas]

Have you ever seen announcers declare a winner before time has run out?

Yes, absolutely.

[Dave_LF]

Referees and party officials not so much. TV announcers and reporters, sure.

[Frelga]

Yeah, that's the point where Steph Curry stands there bouncing the ball until the clock runs out.

I like Bernie. I'm not voting for him. He's an idealist. There is nothing so terrifying as an idealist in the position of power.

[Inanna]

Yeah, that's the point where Steph Curry stands there bouncing the ball until the clock runs out.

I like Bernie. I'm not voting for him. He's an idealist. There is nothing so terrifying as an idealist in the position of power.

Yes - a narcissist in the position of power.

[Frelga]

I don't know. Narcissism implies self-interest. At the extreme, an idealist will burn the world even if he will go down in flames with it. I don't think Bernie is at that extreme, but given his lack of interest in the party unity at the point where his candidacy has a very slim to none chance, and the importance of not electing Trump is more evident than ever, I am beginning to have doubts.

[Cerin]

Bernie has not been coy about the fact that he believes our political system is totally corrupt, and that he believes change must come from the bottom (the people), not from the top (the Party). I think people who expect him to put Party unity first haven't been paying close attention. I would think he will do whatever he believes will best advance the agenda of social and economic justice in the long term, over what will advance the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the short term, should the two goals be perceived as conflicting. He clearly doesn't believe that the transformation the country needs is going to come through party politics, so why would one expect him to put party politics first? He said last night that the movement is about more than defeating Donald Trump. I don't know quite what's meant by 'burning the world', but as one who sees no hope for the future through establishment politics, I'm hoping he'll manage to keep the 'revolution' alive through the convention and beyond.

[Alatar]

I've been meaning to ask Cerin. You were a very vocal supporter of Clinton when she ran against Obama. What's changed your mind?

[Cerin]

I've been meaning to ask Cerin. You were a very vocal supporter of Clinton when she ran against Obama. What's changed your mind?

I thought in 2008 that Clinton was a better choice than Obama because she was a fighter, and from the beginning, I thought his words were hollow. Of course, we don't know, but I believe she at least would not have played doormat to an opposition bent on obstruction, and would have recognized the adversarial nature of the situation. In addition, I did not understand then as well as I do now, the consequences of the Clinton's deregulation and trade policies. The Clintons still champion the same policies, refusing to recognize what a disaster they have been.

At this point, I’ve completely given up on establishment politics and the two parties. Change is not going to come through the guardians of the status quo.

As I recall, Voronwë was at that time one of Clinton's more vehement detractors, and now he is supporting her. If I had the time, it would be fun to go through the 2008 thread and see what we each had to say about Clinton then.

[River]

Senator Flake, R-Arizona (I think), was on NPR yesterday talking about Trump. He has been vocally opposed to Trump but what was interesting was how he sounded. He didn't seem angry that Trump got the nomination. He seemed sad.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Clinton picked up two of the three big endorsements that she still needed. First, President Obama endorsed her in a video message.



Then Elizabeth Warren endorsed her in an interview with the Boston Globe.

Both strongly praised Sen. Sanders, but emphasized the importance of his supporters getting behind Clinton.

Now the question is whether Warren will be asked to the VP pick, and if so, whether she will accept.

[River]

While there is something enticing about an all-female ticket, I prefer Warren right where she is, doing what she's doing.

[Primula Baggins]

I watched her endorsement on the Rachel Maddow show, and at one point Maddow asked her if she was interested in being VP. Her emphatic answer was that she loves the work she's doing in the Senate—she loves her job. She's said that before. At the very end, though, Maddow asked her an odd question: she's not interested in the job, okay, but does she think she could do the most important part? Does she think she's capable of being Commander in Chief if the need arose? It seemed to take Warren by surprise, but her answer was, yes, I could. That an no more.

Tom thought it was a hint that she's thought about it more seriously and may actually be willing. I hope not, because although she'd be dynamite in the campaign, she's already going to campaign for Clinton; and her role in the Senate will only become more important if the Democrats retake it, as seems quite possible. She's doing good work; she should keep at it.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I'm calling shenanigans with the California primary. First they cancel the exit polling, and then Hillary wins in a landslide where all the Democrats I know were Bernie supporters.

Or maybe I just know the better Democrats.

[Primula Baggins]

What's the size of your polling database?