Bernie’s Final Plea: It’s All Down To Voter Turnout

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

From SJMN

Appearing to soften his resolve on the eve of the California primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday that if he didn’t win Tuesday’s California primary, he will reassess whether he will contest Hillary Clinton’s nomination at the Democratic convention in July.

“Let me talk to you after the primary here in California, where we hope to win,” Sanders told reporters who asked whether he would endorse his Democratic rival, former Sen. Hillary Clinton. “Let’s assess where we are after tomorrow.”

His comments during a news conference in Emeryville not only highlighted the importance of the delegate-rich state — 475 are at stake — but were a subtle acknowledgment that there’s a chance he might not contest the nomination as he has vowed to do.

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

It looks like he's backed away from his pledge to take it to the convention irrespective of the results in CA.

Well... if he does that would be a commendable display from him. I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

Tragic

[FATCAT 60,886]

He's taking it to the convention as long as Hillary is shy of the 2383 pledged delegates. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

He's taking it to the convention as long as Hillary is shy of the 2383 pledged delegates. 

FATCAT how many times do we have to tell you it's 2383 delegates not pledged delegates only Also Bernie specifically says he will reassess the situation after CA, so no it's no longer true that he will definitely take it to the convention  

[FATCAT 60,886]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

FATCAT how many times do we have to tell you it's 2383 delegates not pledged delegates only 

Also Bernie specifically says he will reassess the situation after CA, so no it's no longer true that he will definitely take it to the convention  

Super delegates don't vote until the convention. There are no super delegates to count, at this moment in time. She currently has 1,812 delegates.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Super delegates don't vote until the convention. There are no super delegates to count, at this moment in time. She currently has 1,812 delegates.

They haven't voted but they have pledged their support to the candidate. That means it's as good as done until stated otherwise especially when they have no reason to change their opinion  

Not all superdelegates have taken sides though. There are 119 that have not spoken for either candidate.

As many have already stated, no Democratic candidate has ever garnered 60% of the total vote (2383 delegates) before the convention. They were all declared winners as soon as their delegate count exceeded the threshold, including Obama who won despite being behind in the popular vote  

So this isn't a unique situation for Sanders and it won't be treated as such. Hillary is going to win. She's less than 50 delegates away

In any case this is good. He's doing the right thing. Letting CA vote but not ignoring the writing on the wall if things don't go his way. This is a fair stance and I commend Sanders for it. It is the same thing Clinton did in 2008.

[FATCAT 60,886]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

They haven't voted but they have pledged their support to the candidate. That means it's as good as done especially when they have no reason to change their opinion  

Not all superdelegates have taken sides though. There are 119 that have not spoken for either candidate.

As many have already stated, no Democratic candidate has ever garnered 60% of the total vote (2383 delegates) before the convention. They were all declared winners as soon as their delegate count exceeded the threshold, including Obama who won despite being behind in the popular vote  

So this isn't a unique situation for Sanders and it won't be treated as such. Hillary is going to win. She's less than 50 delegates away

In any case this is good. He's doing the right thing. Letting CA vote but not ignoring the writing on the wall if things don't go his way in CA. This is a fair stance and I commend Sanders for it.

Considering most super-delegates "pledged" their support before Sanders even ran, it's completely ridiculous to consider their opinion until the convention. They haven't voted yet, and no one will be declared a winner until the convention. It will be a contested convention.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Considering most super-delegates "pledged" their support before Sanders even ran, it's completely ridiculous to consider their opinion until the convention. They haven't voted yet, and no one will be declared a winner until the convention. It will be a contested convention.

They haven't switched so their pledge remains the same.How is it not normal that they initially defaulted to Hillary, the one they understand, share similar values, and trust having been a member of the party for 30 years?

They aren't sticking to Clinton because of that either.

Most superdelegates started with Hillary in 2008 too, yet many switched to Obama. Why? Because they were very evenly matched but Obama had better optics so they made the appropriate decision at the time.

Sanders has not presented a good argument for them to switch their votes. He is way behind in the popular vote and in pledged delegates. He has been rude towards them (despite him being one) throughout most of his campaign until he needed them. 

Sanders had to prove his case to them being a new member of the party. He failed, unlike Obama who proved he was better than Hillary for the job despite her having more initial approval.

That you insist it will be contested is ridiculous. They have not switched their support. If Sanders takes it to the convention, he will be defeated on the first ballot and it will be over. It is only contested if the first ballot fails.

That is not going to happen. Stop thinking there is a Sanders conspiracy. What's happening to him has happened to all other candidates before. He lost. 

[FATCAT 60,886]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

They haven't switched so their pledge remains the same.

How is it not normal that they defaulted to Hillary, the one they understand, share similar values, and trust having been a member of the party for 30 years.

They aren't sticking to Clinton because of that either.

Most superdelegates started with Hillary in 2008 too, yet many switched to Obama. Why? Because they were very evenly matched but Obama had better optics so they made the right decision.

Sanders has not presented a good argument for them to switch their votes. He is way behind in the popular vote and in pledged delegates. He has been rude towards them (despite him being one) throughout most of his campaign until he needed them. 

That you insist it will be contested is ridiculous. They have not switched their support. If Sanders takes it to the convention, he will be defeated on the first ballot and it will be over. It is only contested if the first ballot fails.

That is not going to happen. 

A few have. I'll bet good money that a lot of them are waiting to hear more about the impending case against Clinton, and her possible indictment. It's a long road to the convention.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

A few have. I'll bet good money that a lot of them are waiting to hear more about the impending case against Clinton, and her possible indictment. It's a long road to the convention.

119 haven't pledged to either. Those have remained neutral.

If Clinton is indicted then it will default to Sanders next even if he 'gives up'. It is most likely (99%) not going to happen though. If you're cynical about Hillary, you know someone like Hillary will get away with it because of the system blablabla. If you aren't, you know that someone like Hillary very likely did nothing illegal.  

[FATCAT 60,886]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

119 haven't pledged to either. Those have remained neutral.

If Clinton is indicted then it will default to Sanders next. It is most likely (99%) not going to happen though. If you're cynical about Hillary, you know someone like Hillary will get away with it because of the system blablabla. If you aren't, you know that someone like Hillary very likely did nothing illegal.  

Confronted with all of the current depositions, the fact that so many emails have been found, the fact that Clinton erased them and then tried to cover it up. Then that cover up was found untrue via the IG report. All this evidence to support that she's hiding something, yet you completely write it off. The FBI won't write it off, and considering their lengthy case, they have reason to be there, and their actions conclude that they've found something. 

You proclaim that Sanders supporters are sheep, but in reality all you need to do it look in the mirror.

You are the sheep.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Confronted with all of the current depositions, the fact that so many emails have been found, the fact that Clinton erased them and then tried to cover it up. Then that cover up was found untrue via the IG report. All this evidence to support that she's hiding something, yet you completely write it off. The FBI won't write it off, and considering their lengthy case, they have reason to be there, and their actions conclude that they've found something. 

You proclaim that Sanders supporters are sheep, but in reality all you need to do it look in the mirror.

You are the sheep.

What are you even saying? 

Depositions? You're mixing cases by quoting the civil case by Judicial Watch here. This isn't related to indictment procedures. This is the GOP attack on Clinton.

Clinton erased files she claimed where personal which have been recovered. They are being examined now. You cannot correlate action with motive based on superficial evidence. If you watched any law tv show you should know this 

She didn't cover up anything according to the IG report. She simply stated earlier that she was cooperating, which turned out to be a half-truth because she was not cooperating with the IG while focusing fully on the FBI investigation. This makes sense really. That's the one that matters. The classified documents.

If she did cover up something when it comes to media statements, it's typically because she doesn't want it to be out there to be used politically. It doesn't mean that she did something wrong and likely stated that to the FBI officials. Sure it's not exactly transparent but have you not seen how the media has treated this case?  

This is a lengthy case because there is a lot of work to sift through. FBI cases of this magnitude normally last this long. They're standard procedure. Duration does not correlate with guilt.

From this article

Spoiler

The Justice Department also does not appear to have convened a grand jury to examine Clinton's email use, a likely step if prosecutors were weighing felony criminal charges.

Lansing Woo, a retired FBI official who supervised counterintelligence investigations in the Los Angeles field office, said the recent interviews of Clinton's aides appear to follow standard procedure.

"You start at the periphery of the circle," Woo said. By the time investigators move from far-removed witnesses to the person they most want to speak with, "they're already going to know what's what, who's who, who did what, and they're going to then ask the questions around that," he said.

But Deitch, now in private practice, stressed that just because investigators may seek to interview Clinton does not necessarily mean she is in legal jeopardy.

"As a defense attorney, I have had many cases where targets of an investigation were interviewed and no indictment was ever forthcoming," Deitch said. "It's just part of the process.

What's with your final two sentences? I'm basing my conclusions off what we currently know, not what I wish I want to happen.

I've already stated that there is potential that Hillary may have messed up. I also said that there is no precedent that Hillary will get indicted based on what we currently know as well because she lacks malevolent motive and as far as we know there is no leak, just claims with no proof.

Despite all of this as well, the laws which she may have broken pertain to the Espionage Act which guard against spies and leaks who are national enemies. Hillary is not one. She will be judged differently and with far less repercussions.

If there WAS something to worry about, Clinton would not still be in the race. She would not risk the Democratic race if there was. You need to stop stupefying the entire Democratic party. Hillary is not going to get indicted.

---

I've been nothing but polite to you in our discussions. What's with the attitude? 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Maybe im not the optimist I say I am, but it's pretty much over for Bernie unless all of the superdelegates miraculously decide that they won't back Hillary in light of the email scandal, and that's unlikely to me