Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Belz...]

Sanders is wishfully believing he can end up with more pledged delegates than Clinton resulting in an opening to persuade superdelegates to switch sides.

It's not going to happen but that is where the talk of a brokered Democratic Convention comes from.

Well, no one can blame him for trying. Some have also hoped that Hillary will move to the left to woo his voters once she wins the nomination. Even that would be a win for him, after a fashion.

 

[Bubba]

Gymnastics above failed to conceal it

In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:

“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.

"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'

If she denies it maybe the time Hillary spent under sniper fire damaged her memory.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In a two horse race, would this require delegates to abstain ?

Quick look at the numbers (correct me if I'm wrong, from wikipedia, 5-38 and the Parry article), with 4051 pledged and 714 superdelegates a candidate needs to win 2383 delegates total.

If the gap between Hillary and Sanders stays about the same as it is now (let's say 250 delegates for arguments sake), they will end up with 2151 to 1900 of the pledged delegates. Which means Hillary has to count on 232 super-delegates to vote for her in reality (Parry writes 469 have promised to do so).

Should Bernie continue to creep up to her and this ends with a "tie" (shillaries would call it a win ) of 2026 to 2025, Hillary would need 357 of the 714 superdelegates to vote for her (or Bernie 358), in other words only 113 of those 469 who promised to do so would need to call it a tie as well and abstain, with the rest of superdelegates continuing to not endorse Her Entitledness as well.

So it's certainly possibly that no candidate will win, although it doesn't look very likely.

 

[Bubba]

Then debunk the pesky videos starring Hillary changing her stories ie lying, her server/emails, for example. She's corrupt.

 

[The Don]

Then debunk the pesky videos starring Hillary changing her stories ie lying, her server/emails, for example. She's corrupt.

If those were the reasons why you think she is corrupt, why bring up the long-debunked other points as your opening gambit ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think he really believes that he can win. He is not stupid. I think he just wants to be close enough that Hillary has to address the issues he has raised. He wants her to know that the party is moving back to the left and she needs to be careful when tempted towards the middle. Even though he is older than everyone else in the race he represents the youth of the democratic party, the future. If the party ignores his supporters they could end up as screwed as the GOP.

I don't know, when I hear him give his speeches and interviews he seems to be on a high. I think he still believes his winning streak was due to a shift in the wind rather than a run of caucus states with smaller minority populations.

 

[Bubba]

If those were the reasons why you think she is corrupt, why bring up the long-debunked other points as your opening gambit ?

debunked shmeebunked.

Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have

Snopes Shmopes.

There is no proving or disproving who did or didnt kill certain persons named in the clinton arkansas body count. The Clinton connections are blatant. Doubt and suspicion remain.


Hillary's lying about other matters on video supports every doubt about her honesty.

Just look at the videos of her changing her stories about her server and emails.

 

[varwoche]

If those were the reasons why you think she is corrupt, why bring up the long-debunked other points as your opening gambit ?

A little game of whack-a-mole naturally. I enjoy whacking them in the game arcade, not so much here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't know, when I hear him give his speeches and interviews he seems to be on a high. I think he still believes his winning streak was due to a shift in the wind rather than a run of caucus states with smaller minority populations.

Could be. Either way I think it has been good for the party.

 

[varwoche]

It's intuitive that is so. But when I looked into it, big corporations hire just as many celebs as they do politicians for these big speaker-fee events. And Clinton has spoken often on expanding the role of women in business as well as promoting other women success stories talking at events at Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs regularly invites leading thinkers from a broad range of backgrounds to share their views and expertise.

84 results for Clinton on the GS web page. The majority of the search results are to pages like this one:

10,000 WOMEN PROGRAM AT THE 2014 CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE

Interesting, thank you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting, thank you.

I did a search and didn't notice anything about the three compensated speeches she gave after leaving State.

It is almost as if you are reading corporate propaganda.

Oh wait, you are.

Interesting

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could be. Either way I think it has been good for the party.

I agree, but he risks trashing it all with his sour grapes declarations about how corrupt the Democratic Party is.

 

[DavidJames]

Personally I would like to thank Bubba for entering the discussion. Bubba's thinking is simply a logical extension of the "logic" and "critical thinking" employed by many of the Sanders supporters. I support Sanders, but I'm embarrassed by and abhor the nonsense spewed by them.

If the best you can do is resort to that claptrap rather then articulate a rational argument to support your candidate, you are on the wrong forum.

 

[The Big Dog]

The thing I find notable is all the Sanders "supporters" who spend most of their time ripping on Sanders' supporters.

 

[Bob001]

I agree, but he risks trashing it all with his sour grapes declarations about how corrupt the Democratic Party is.

Whether there is corruption regarding the donations is for the lawyers to debate. But there is no doubt at all that the DNC leadership was in the barrel for Clinton against all comers from the beginning. If D. W. Schultz and others had just played it down the middle, as one might reasonably expect in primary season, Sanders would be in an even stronger position today. And for me, the fact that such an odd, out-of-the-mainstream candidate could get so far so fast is solid proof that someone like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker etc. could have left Clinton in the dust if they had made different decisions.

 

[pgwenthold]

Whether there is corruption regarding the donations is for the lawyers to debate. But there is no doubt at all that the DNC leadership was in the barrel for Clinton against all comers from the beginning. If D. W. Schultz and others had just played it down the middle, as one might reasonably expect in primary season, Sanders would be in an even stronger position today. And for me, the fact that such an odd, out-of-the-mainstream candidate could get so far so fast is solid proof that someone like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker etc. could have left Clinton in the dust if they had made different decisions.

Why didn't they choose to run? Because they were disenfranchised by the DNC? Or because they thought that it was good time for Hillary?

Remember, Hillary was a hair from being the nominee in 2008, so it's not like she was some newcomer. She had a great track record, running neck and neck with a guy that skated through two national elections.

You don't need to invoke a conspiracy to account for her success, nor her support from "DNC leadership."

 

[Maya22]

The thing I find notable is all the Sanders "supporters" who spend most of their time ripping on Sanders' supporters.

I don't know if you are including me in this. I would never criticize ALL Sanders supporters. That would alienate a big slice of my social circle. I was only criticizing the actions of a few dozen low lifes from LoCal who do NOT represent the rest of us.

 

[Bob001]

Why didn't they choose to run? Because they were disenfranchised by the DNC? Or because they thought that it was good time for Hillary?

Remember, Hillary was a hair from being the nominee in 2008, so it's not like she was some newcomer. She had a great track record, running neck and neck with a guy that skated through two national elections.
You don't need to invoke a conspiracy to account for her success, nor her support from "DNC leadership."

What? In 2008, she was an international celebrity, twice-elected U.S. senator, and former First Lady married to a mostly well-respected former President running against an unknown guy with no substantial public record at all. And she lost.

Biden and Warren have explained why they didn't run. For Booker, maybe it's too soon. But for the candidates who did choose to run, the DNC was nowhere close to an honest broker.

 

[Bob001]

....
It seems that Clooney is better-informed than you are, after all. Maybe you could check your sources before repeating crap from the blogosphere. But thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Tell him about 'em, Don Pardo!

The allegation is that much of that money donated to the Hillary Victory Fund for down-ticket races is actually getting recycled back to the Clinton campaign, circumventing the intent if not the letter of campaign finance laws. And Politico is hardly the "blogosphere," especially when it cites an accounting report to the FEC:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-committee-raised-33-million-222044
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/19/a_m...t_democrats_shes_out_to_help_hillary_clinton/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...But for the candidates who did choose to run, the DNC was nowhere close to an honest broker.

Sanders wants it both ways. He wants to denigrate the Democratic Party and then whine that they don't support him.

The whole debate brouhaha turned out to be a minor issue. The records kerfuffle his campaign caused and it lasted all of day. And now he's whining about the Dinner Party fundraising when he could have done the same and chose not to. So now he's complaining Clinton is raising money the way all candidates for POTUS do while bragging that he isn't.

If you want to call it corruption because the Democratic Party including the leadership supports Clinton, then you need to prove they are somehow thwarting the wishes of the members. And you have to show it actually resulted in Sanders having a disadvantage.

He has not been disadvantaged and he's not getting the majority of votes. He wants to blame it on anything other than, it's the voters' choice.