Good on Bernie for doing as well as he did, and I think, helping tilt Hillary a little more left. But he was never really close. I'm sure the media is partly to blame, but the media has also attacked Hillary far more than Bernie has been. Really the only backlash against Bernie is against his unruly following who is becoming batshit insane.

Hillary won by more votes that is democracy. I agree I wish it was more like the Republicans because then it would have been winner take all in Illinois, Ohio, Florida, NY, and Pennsylvania and Hillary would have gotten there with pledged delegates.

The superdelegate dicussion about them deciding the nominee is redundant.

The Sanders campaign is constantly saying Clinton can't clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, and that argument is obvious.

In a two-person race that lasts all season, it'd be very, very difficult for a democratic candidate to get the majority of delegates based on their proportional rule. Obama didn't do it in 2008; Clinton can't do it in 2016. A candidate would have to outright dominate throughout the primary season, and if there would happen to be a third, or fourth, candidate in the running - it's nearly impossible to clinch the nomination with pledge delegates alone, especially if that third/fourth candidate lasts past the early states.

And, if you would abolish the superdelegate system all-together (which I'm up for so to avoid this topic again in the future), you'd have to lower the majority delegate number down to 2,026 from 2,383. And if you did that, Clinton is going to easy exceed that number once California weighs in. She's at 1,812 pledged right now, and after tonight, she'll have round 2,150-2,175 (that's splitting Cali. 50/50). She wouldn't even need 25% of the vote in California to reach 2,026 pledge delegates.

There is nothing wrong with Super Delegates!!!

The SDs were telling everyone Bernie Sanders was BS from the beginning. Al Franken rarely speaks and he clearly implied to not let this guy anywhere near the WH.

SDs are insurance against a Donald Trump on the left winning the nomination. Get rid of caucuses and open primaries. If there were a 3-4 person race through the end of March, which there could be in the future, how else would we pick a nominee before the convention? Another 1968 needs to be avoided, if at all possible.

I don't mind superdelegates and think they're perfectly fine. They just tend to confuse those unfamiliar with the process, which leads to a lot of uninformed opinions (rigged!) about the system.

Anyway, tonight has been huge for Clinton. Dominate win in New Jersey; Comfortable (if closer than expected) win in New Mexico; Possibly a surprise win in South Dakota (unless that last country changes it); and Montana is even looking pretty good right now. I never imagined she'd win be competitive there.

And finally, California is looking excellent. A 20+ point (25+?!) win is looking possible despite recent polls having her up by 2/3 points. That's devastating for Sanders, who has spent so much time and money there in recent weeks.

I think democratic voters have spoken resoundingly tonight that Clinton is their choice.

This was Hillary's best speech of her campaign so far

So happy and excited for this moment.

Sanders is straight up terrifying. "End racism by...BREAKING UP THE BANKS!!"

Trump is bizarre, but he has had a positive impact on politics in his own little way. All the negative stuff you can just stick to him. The political correctness was getting excessive, the GOP needed a dominant figure to tell them that W was a "COMPLETE disaster" and clinging to his policies a "terrible" idea, and also...Trump's bigotry has spurned GOP leadership to action in terms of respect for groups which otherwise may not have happened.

It is over now. At this point Sanders looks foolish even talking about going to the convention. First off the Super delegates aren't switching because that would be crazy and go against the will of the people. And second he looks like a major hypocrite saying the system is rigged but I am going to win by rigging the system. He is meeting with Obama tomorrow, hopefully he can talk some sense into him.

That is not the point. Momentum and media narrative mean everything, especially in the primary that is stretched out for several months. Most voters get their election news from online or cable outlets. How the media report election results and how they frame the race can influence people's decision to vote (or not to vote). I remember after the New Hampshire primary, the narrative from the mainstream media was: "Sanders wins NH primary, but Clinton adds to delegate lead.". In reality, Sanders got 60% of the vote while Clinton got 38%. He gained 15 pledged delegates while she gained 9. But obviously, the media used a different delegate math. They included superdelegates, who "are not actually voting" according to the DNC in the video. Clinton entered the race with a 400+ delegate lead, all due to superdelegates. This is a game she is always winning big, if cable news is your only news source. If the race is never close and under-reported with few debates scheduled, what incentives do voters have to go to the polls?

The rules say superdelegates are unbound delegates who vote at the convention. Stick to the rules and let the process play out. Sure, Clinton is the likely nominee. But who knows what can happen between now and July 25? An indictment? An unforeseen scandal? No one knows these extraordinary circumstances.

And what is the point of announcing your choice anonymously months before the primary starts? The establishment clearly wants to influence the election (i.e. tipping the scales in favor of one candidate) provided the way the media do delegate math.

I am all for superdelegates if they are reserved only for extreme circumstances. Their votes should only count after all primary voting is done.

Highly likely that AP and other media breaking the "news" Monday (thank you again, superdelegates) have helped boost Clinton's showing at the polls on Tuesday.

California is not done yet. As many as 3 million votes are still uncounted.



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-wednesday-s-big-question-how-many-1465375928-htmlstory.html

Hillary is meeting with Elizabeth Warren this morning.

I kind of doubt Warren actually ends up as the VP choice, but two women on the ticket together is just...like, I can't. Amazing.

Also:

I would die if it was Clinton/Warren. That would probably be the most rockstar ticket I can remember.

This is turning into a Twitter spit contest.

his reply was essentially this:

I am not on Twitter and I probably don't understand it.

i.hope delete your account.

Dude who responds to Orlando shooting with "Appreciate the congrats" might be president

He "might" be President, because anything is possible.

I can't wrap my head around the RNC allowing him to be the nominee. It seems like electoral suicide, except who do they pick at this point? He seems like he is a performance artist more than an actual candidate.

I always thought Bush was dangerous in 2000, when everyone around me assured me Gore would win. I don't see how Trump wins unless the economy tanks and there is a massive terrorist attack, and I still have a hard time seeing how he wins. There are many people coming out of the woodwork to vote against him, and many reliable Republicans won't vote for him.

How does he do in a one on one debate with Clinton? He only has about 15 minutes of material.

no comment

Trump is like the rot or fire that comes after all the dead wood has collected in the forest.

So Trump is a good thing like a controlled burning or a bad thing like an uncontrollable wildfire?

At this point he's like the uncontrolled wildfire, although, you could argue there could always have been a worse wildfire.

Thank you. I think I understand your point.