Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[MDM]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....

What is an "expansive" right?

[Glenstache]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights of women, minorities, the handicapped, gays, immigrants, or students.


..............or the ability to cast a ballot for eligible folks.

Recognizing that this study cartoonizes both liberals and conservatives, I found it interesting and is consistent with the way that liberal and conservative leaning parties phrase things. I will say, the study probably shouldn't be taken too far or overinterpreted.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

In the current discussion, conservatives are afraid of voter fraud while the liberals want inclusiveness and complexity. This plays out across many political hot topics.

[Northwestie]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....

What is an "expansive" right?

Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage.  Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"

[Jeremy E.]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....

What is an "expansive" right?

Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage.  Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"

How about the right to bear arms?

[MDM]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....

What is an "expansive" right?

Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage.  Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"

Is "allowing people to do things that current law prevents" a reasonable paraphrasing?

[forummm]

Of course, the flip side is that because ID laws seem to be overly difficult only for Democrats, then that's why they are against them. Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.

The Democrats literally lost the South for the past 50 years because they passed the Voting Rights Act so that everyone could vote. LBJ knew that at the time. So, you couldn't be more wrong.

[Jeremy E.]

Of course, the flip side is that because ID laws seem to be overly difficult only for Democrats, then that's why they are against them. Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.

The Democrats literally lost the South for the past 50 years because they passed the Voting Rights Act so that everyone could vote. LBJ knew that at the time. So, you couldn't be more wrong.

Both democrats and republicans redistrict to help them win elections, not the same thing, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.

[sol]

What is an "expansive" right?

How about the right to bear arms?

The right to bear arms is actually a fascinating case, because the Republican Party initially DID lead a push to expand that right to more people.  Then they realized all those inner city black men were legally carrying concealed weapons, and they quickly changed their tune.  These days, they advocate for a wider variety of weapons to be available to their pre-approved subset of armed citizens, but they no longer push very hard for things like lowering the legal age to buy handguns or restoring gun ownership rights to felons.

[Jeremy E.]

What is an "expansive" right?

How about the right to bear arms?

The right to bear arms is actually a fascinating case, because the Republican Party initially DID lead a push to expand that right to more people.  Then they realized all those inner city black men were legally carrying concealed weapons, and they quickly changed their tune.  These days, they advocate for a wider variety of weapons to be available to their pre-approved subset of armed citizens, but they no longer push very hard for things like lowering the legal age to buy handguns or restoring gun ownership rights to felons.

In the great state of Idaho, we have recently passed 2 laws,
1) Allowing guns on college campuses
2) Got rid of concealed carry licenses, any non-felon adult can concealed carry legally without a license now
So at least around where I am, republicans are still pushing for the right to bear arms. The population of African-Americans is very low, if that matters.

[brooklynguy]

I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.

I remain a realistic person, as well.  I do think there may be some short term pain.

The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world.  Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic.  Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large.  He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it.  Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.

Everything's cyclical.  Plato says in The Republic that democracy falls to a tyrant.  I've thought for about 12 years that this would happen in my lifetime.

Your long-term may be different than mine.  I think we'll be fine over the next few centuries and millennia. But there may be short-term pain.

Surprised this piece (which has been making waves) hasn't yet been mentioned here: America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny

The author invokes Plato, earnestly arguing that our democracy currently hangs in the balance.

[dycker1978]

I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....

What is an "expansive" right?

Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage.  Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"

Here is an easier one right now.  Transgender people have the right to use the bathroom of the gender that they are, not the sex they were born. 

[wenchsenior]

I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.

I remain a realistic person, as well.  I do think there may be some short term pain.

The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world.  Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic.  Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large.  He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it.  Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.

Everything's cyclical.  Plato says in The Republic that democracy falls to a tyrant.  I've thought for about 12 years that this would happen in my lifetime.

Your long-term may be different than mine.  I think we'll be fine over the next few centuries and millennia. But there may be short-term pain.

Surprised this piece (which has been making waves) hasn't yet been mentioned here: America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny

The author invokes Plato, earnestly arguing that our democracy currently hangs in the balance.

Good old Sully...always interesting to read. I was listening to him discuss this piece on a podcast, and I literally gasped out loud when he summed up his position...keep in mind, this was coming from someone who has despised the Clintons for DECADES, and often derails into rather juvenile rants when discussing them.

Approx quote: I would crawl over broken glass or eat hot coals this year to get Hillary Clinton elected. I'll do ANYTHING. No patriot, no one who considers themselves a conservative, can do less. Everything else is bullshit.

[forummm]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

[hoping2retire35]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

[forummm]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

[hoping2retire35]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

I am saying trump is saying the WaPo is a corrupt machine of jeff bezos. probably should take any article from this paper with a grain of salt, (ignore it).

[NoStacheOhio]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.

[Roland of Gilead]

I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.

I don't have a problem with that.   I would actually have a problem with a president who didn't fight and just capitulated.

[Jack]

any non-felon adult can concealed carry legally without a license now

So at least around where I am, republicans are still pushing for the right to bear arms. The population of African-Americans is very low, if that matters.

And now you know why the persecution* rate of African-Americans is so much higher than it is for white people.

* not a typo

[forummm]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

I am saying trump is saying the WaPo is a corrupt machine of jeff bezos. probably should take any article from this paper with a grain of salt, (ignore it).

That sounds like the wrong conclusion to make. Trump is complaining about a newspaper doing their job. He's a big baby working the refs. Newspapers are supposed to investigate public figures and report on them. When you run for president, that's what you sign up for. The first amendment is there to protect newspapers so they can do this without interference.

You think that there aren't people doing the same with Clinton? They've been digging into her life for 40 years.

[Jeremy E.]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.

I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.

[NoStacheOhio]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.

I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.

And that's fine. He's just a massive hypocrite. Unless he's accusing Bezos/Amazon of actual tax evasion, which he isn't.

[Jack]

Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.

I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.

And that's fine. He's just a massive hypocrite. Unless he's accusing Bezos/Amazon of actual tax evasion, which he isn't.

The idea that anti-trust law is important and billionaires shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the media to push their agenda is correct... but being correct occasionally doesn't make Trump any less of an asshat.

[forummm]

There are a lot of polls right now where Trump is incredibly close to Clinton in both the country and in swing states. Like Ohio and Florida. Some where he is ahead, and many within the margin of error. And he hasn't really started to campaign fully against her yet. And he's a great campaigner, and she's pretty bad at it. I think the race still leans towards Clinton, but it's a lot closer to even than people generally think.

And of course Sanders just blows Trump away, and does better than Clinton in every single state (and the country) where I've seen both him and Clinton polled vs Trump.

And Clinton still hasn't been indicted yet, so that potential huge damage hasn't been added in.

The Democrats are crazy if they nominate Clinton.

[Kris]

There are a lot of polls right now where Trump is incredibly close to Clinton in both the country and in swing states. Like Ohio and Florida. Some where he is ahead, and many within the margin of error. And he hasn't really started to campaign fully against her yet. And he's a great campaigner, and she's pretty bad at it. I think the race still leans towards Clinton, but it's a lot closer to even than people generally think.

And of course Sanders just blows Trump away, and does better than Clinton in every single state (and the country) where I've seen both him and Clinton polled vs Trump.

And Clinton still hasn't been indicted yet, so that potential huge damage hasn't been added in.

The Democrats are crazy if they nominate Clinton.

As of about two days ago, I agree with you. I think that if Clinton is the nominee, she will lose. And I think Clinton will be the nominee.

So yeah, I think Trump is going to win this.

[Glenstache]

Is there a universe where a Clinton-Sanders ticket would happen?

[forummm]

Is there a universe where a Clinton-Sanders ticket would happen?

Very unlikely. The establishment hates Sanders. If Clinton is not the nominee, I bet they will give it to Biden. They are already starting to do some damage control around that and floating Biden as the alternative nominee if she gets indicted in time to swap her off the ticket.

[forummm]

If Clinton is not the nominee, I bet they will give it to Biden. They are already starting to do some damage control around that and floating Biden as the alternative nominee if she gets indicted in time to swap her off the ticket.

And this would be disastrous for the party BTW. Giving it to a guy who didn't even run will really piss off the base.

[Jeremy E.]

There are a lot of polls right now where Trump is incredibly close to Clinton in both the country and in swing states. Like Ohio and Florida. Some where he is ahead, and many within the margin of error. And he hasn't really started to campaign fully against her yet. And he's a great campaigner, and she's pretty bad at it. I think the race still leans towards Clinton, but it's a lot closer to even than people generally think.

And of course Sanders just blows Trump away, and does better than Clinton in every single state (and the country) where I've seen both him and Clinton polled vs Trump.

And Clinton still hasn't been indicted yet, so that potential huge damage hasn't been added in.

The Democrats are crazy if they nominate Clinton.

The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.

[forummm]

And Trump is starting to change his most hideous positions. He's going to be on the left of Clinton on some things.

The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.

No, the delegates haven't voted yet. And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

[Northwestie]

Extremely doubtful

[Cressida]

And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

The superdelegates have never chosen a nominee who wasn't ahead in the primary voting. You could call that "deciding the nominee in the absence of a landslide," but it would be highly misleading.

[forummm]

And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

The superdelegates have never chosen a nominee who wasn't ahead in the primary voting. You could call that "deciding the nominee in the absence of a landslide," but it would be highly misleading.

No, they still decide the nominee. They just have decided to go with the pledged delegate leader in the past, but are certainly not bound to do so. This system has only been in place for 6 contested primaries, so there's not that much precedent to feel confident about.

[Cressida]

And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

The superdelegates have never chosen a nominee who wasn't ahead in the primary voting. You could call that "deciding the nominee in the absence of a landslide," but it would be highly misleading.

No, they still decide the nominee. They just have decided to go with the pledged delegate leader in the past, but are certainly not bound to do so. This system has only been in place for 6 contested primaries, so there's not that much precedent to feel confident about.

I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.

[Jeremy E.]

And Trump is starting to change his most hideous positions. He's going to be on the left of Clinton on some things.

The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.

No, the delegates haven't voted yet. And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count

[nereo]

And Trump is starting to change his most hideous positions. He's going to be on the left of Clinton on some things.

The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.

No, the delegates haven't voted yet. And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.

Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count

I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')
However - I take issue with you saying that the country "has already nominated" Clinton (as you did above), or that she IS the nominee. That is factually incorrect.  It not over yet.  You might go into the fourth quarter with a 3 touch-down lead, but it simply isn't over until the whistle blows.

[forummm]

I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.

So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? And give me odds. So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". Or are you "delusional" like me and realize that there's always a chance that something different happens when the convention hasn't happened and the delegates haven't voted yet?

Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count

I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there. But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

[forummm]

I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')

No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).

[nereo]

I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')

No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).

Forumm, I was expressing my opinion on what would happen (see the phrase "I believe").  Can I be wrong?  Sure.  But your statement reads like my belief is not possible. I'm not discounting the possibility that Sanders will drop out before California in three weeks, or at least pull back somewhat as running a symboic and 'ideas' campaign (which he's actually already started to do somewhat).   Also, as a candidate's lead becomes insurmountable the opposition's turnout tends to diminish dramatically.  I expect we'll see that as soon as Clinton's total delegate count exceeds the 2383 mark. 
Mathematically, Clinton could win the nomination outright without the use of super-delegates by winning California and a few of the remaining states by double-digit margins.

 

[forummm]

I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')

No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).

Forumm, I was expressing my opinion on what would happen (see the phrase "I believe").  Can I be wrong?  Sure.  But your statement reads like my belief is not possible. I'm not discounting the possibility that Sanders will drop out before California in three weeks, or at least pull back somewhat as running a symboic and 'ideas' campaign (which he's actually already started to do somewhat).   Also, as a candidate's lead becomes insurmountable the opposition's turnout tends to diminish dramatically.  I expect we'll see that as soon as Clinton's total delegate count exceeds the 2383 mark. 
Mathematically, Clinton could win the nomination outright without the use of super-delegates by winning California and a few of the remaining states by double-digit margins.

 

I see. I saw "probably" to mean that it was more likely than not. Which I (and the polling) disagreed with. You could be right.

[Johnez]

California is an open primary state.
Bern has upset Clinton too many times to count.
Momentum is on Bern's side.
Quite a few polls show single digit leads for Clinton.
Polls have been inaccurate up to the very day of primary.

I honestly don't know what to make of Bernie's chances. The thing I notice over and over again is nearly every article I read has Clinton as presumptive winner, win, loss, or landslide. Walking back comments, upsets, and having lost quite a few recent states....it seems to me that she is fighting off her heal. Bern's low on money, but money hasn't been the deciding factor. Outsiders are in. Bern has a good chance. Two votes going toward him here come June.

[beltim]

I honestly don't know what to make of Bernie's chances.

Poor.  Clinton's up 300 delegates with about 1000 to go.  For Bernie to catch her he'd need to win by a better than 40 percentage point margin over the remaining states.  Do you know in how many states Bernie has gotten 70 percent of the vote?  His home state of Vermont, Idaho, Utah, and Washington.  If's he's done it 4 times out of like 40, I don't think he'll hit that in 10 of the next 10.

[Cathy]

So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? ... So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". ...

The opportunity cost of tying up $1,000,000 with arebelspy for 6 months would presumably significantly exceed the $100 that you would pay if you lost. So this bet would be a losing proposition for your counterparty regardless of the outcome of the nomination.

[Cressida]

I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.

So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? And give me odds. So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". Or are you "delusional" like me and realize that there's always a chance that something different happens when the convention hasn't happened and the delegates haven't voted yet?

Um, being unwilling to make a bet with a random person on the internet doesn't make me delusional.

Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count

I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. But Clinton would have the most delegates no matter what method (ranging from winner-take-all to straight-up proportional) you use to assign them.  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

[nereo]

California is an open primary state. s

True.

Bern has upset Clinton too many times to count.

Not if you can count... Clinton has won 23 states, and Sanders has won 18.
Unfortunately, for Mr Sanders, he has lost the six largest state (by population) to hold their primaries so far:  Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, NY, Ohio and Illinois.  That goes a long way towards explaining why he is so far behind in the delegate count.

Momentum is on Bern's side.

Possibly - but inertia is certainly on Clinton's side.  Even if Sanders wins every remaining state, he can't overtake her delegates unless he wins by double-digit margins in the largest states.

Quite a few polls show single digit leads for Clinton.
.

That's very bad news for Sanders, and good news for Clinton.  She doesn't need to win to clinch the nomination - she only needs to not loose by large margins in big states.

Polls have been inaccurate up to the very day of primary

QUite possibly, but which polls are you referring to?  Which states?  How far off?  From what I've seen, of the states that have had large polling coverage the polls have generally been within the statistical margin of error.  Given the complexity of the primary system many of the small states were not polled very much - including the upcoming Kentucky and Oregon states.

note: I'm not advocating for Clinton here; I just believe in an objective reporting of the challenges each faces.

[Jack]

But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

That is a fantasy.

That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.

[Jeremy E.]

I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.

So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? And give me odds. So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". Or are you "delusional" like me and realize that there's always a chance that something different happens when the convention hasn't happened and the delegates haven't voted yet?

Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count

I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there. But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.

Even without counting them, Clinton is very far ahead.

[Glenstache]

Meanwhile, Trump exhibits his diplomatic skills with a real challenger: Britain. Just imagine how amazing these skills would be deployed against someone like Putin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/trump-cameron/482874/

I recognize that, to some extent, this is Trump playing anything at all for media time. But, starting off by telling the leader one of our long-time allies that, "We are not going to have a good relationship." is mind-boggling.

On Clinton-Sanders: it would take a black swan event for Bernie to get the nomination at this point. The math is pretty clear on that. Yes, Bernie has a lot of support, but the math is pretty clear that Clinton does as well. Whether he would do better against Trump or not does not change that math.

edit: link corrected.

[Gin1984]

Meanwhile, Trump exhibits his diplomatic skills with a real challenger: Britain. Just imagine how amazing these skills would be deployed against someone like Putin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/celiac-vs-gluten/482676/

I recognize that, to some extent, this is Trump playing anything at all for media time. But, starting off by telling the leader one of our long-time allies that, "We are not going to have a good relationship." is mind-boggling.

On Clinton-Sanders: it would take a black swan event for Bernie to get the nomination at this point. The math is pretty clear on that. Yes, Bernie has a lot of support, but the math is pretty clear that Clinton does as well. Whether he would do better against Trump or not does not change that math.

Wrong link....

[forummm]

Meanwhile, Trump exhibits his diplomatic skills with a real challenger: Britain. Just imagine how amazing these skills would be deployed against someone like Putin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/celiac-vs-gluten/482676/

I recognize that, to some extent, this is Trump playing anything at all for media time. But, starting off by telling the leader one of our long-time allies that, "We are not going to have a good relationship." is mind-boggling.

On Clinton-Sanders: it would take a black swan event for Bernie to get the nomination at this point. The math is pretty clear on that. Yes, Bernie has a lot of support, but the math is pretty clear that Clinton does as well. Whether he would do better against Trump or not does not change that math.

Wrong link....

Was Trump celiac and Britain gluten? Or vice versa?