Oic. Context would have been helpful, but that's fucking hilarious.

6/8/2016 11:15:45 AM

Quote :

"“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”"

6/8/2016 11:23:24 AM

Quote :

"I would never vote for Trump, but Hillary will have to work for my vote. The Democratic Party will also have to work to keep my affiliation. The first step will have to be the removal of Debbie Wazzername."

Debbie is done, the party establishment started laying the foundation in the media weeks ago. They are going to use her as the scapegoat for everything, they axe her and then they can bring all of the progressives back to the party because everyone is dumb enough to think it means something.

6/8/2016 1:01:10 PM

Its not really stupid if people believe that media like cnn is news since its presented as news. How are people supposed to learn these things if they arent coming from schools or tv? Very few people read through data on open secrets or watch cspan. If you watch cnn for 10 minutes per week or check the headlines, it would be reasonable to beleive the election has been down to trump and clinton over the past few weeks. Thats all they show. I know a lot of people who thought that voting for bernie would help trump win. Most people have a poor understanding of electoral college and primaries arent taught in schools at all. So again, how are people supposed to know?

Im not losing my mind and am not surprised at all. I always knew hillary would be president, it was always just a mattermatter of how far they would have to go to push her through. This cycle is so intriguing because its the first time there has been popular opposition to the status quo. A lot of you have misunderstoood our message. Just because we want democracy doesnt mean we are delusional enough to believe we actually have it.

6/8/2016 1:10:58 PM

I learned about the electoral college and voting process in eighth grade Civics and again in 10th grade US history/govt. Pretty sure it's brought up in school.

[Edited on June 8, 2016 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2016 1:24:19 PM

Honestly I don't really get it. Every time I've flipped on CNN I've seen either Trump (and let's face it, CNN fucking loves what he does for viewership -- he is the only one they constantly have surrogates on for hours at a time for) or how Sanders is pushing Clinton.

I really, truly don't get the whole Clinton News Network thing. It seems like paranoia more than reality.

6/8/2016 3:13:44 PM

Quote :

"Trump (and let's face it, [the media] fucking loves what he does for viewership"

[Edited on June 8, 2016 at 3:26 PM. Reason : yay capitalism! ]

6/8/2016 3:25:13 PM

Quote :

"It seems like paranoia"

i don't think it's paranoia. just another in a littany of excuses

also, we did the whole civics thing in ELPSA in the 9th grade

[Edited on June 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2016 4:31:52 PM

Articles are coming out saying Obama will endorse Hillary soon, but official sources have only said he will endorse the "Democratic nominee" "soon."

If he doesn't know what will come out of the FBI case, it seems to be in his best interest to put off an endorsement until the convention. He can't wait any longer than that without damaging the party's chances.

I think if he endorses any sooner than that, indictment is very unlikely.

6/8/2016 8:06:02 PM

Quote :

"Hillary received 15,899,116 votes this year. Bernie Sanders received 12,193,152 votes. Hillary and Bernie received 28,092,268 total primary votes this year. In 2008 Hillary Clinton received 17,493,836 primary votes. So this year Hillary received 1,594,720 FEWER primary votes than in 2008. And she lost in 2008! Horrible. More than 35,029,294 votes were cast in the 2008 Democratic primary. So Democrats lost nearly 7 million primary votes this year compared to 2008. This is devastating news for the Democrats."

[Edited on June 8, 2016 at 8:08 PM. Reason : g]

6/8/2016 8:06:48 PM

There are dozens of sources that show that primary turnout and numbers mean very little when the general rolls around. I'd be curious to know what that is from but you neglected to show a source.

6/8/2016 8:39:01 PM

Quote :

"indictment is very unlikely."

Ftfy

[Edited on June 8, 2016 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ^ Breitbart. Dude fellates the conservative media all day every day.]

6/8/2016 9:26:51 PM

Quote :

"Articles are coming out saying Obama will endorse Hillary soon, but official sources have only said he will endorse the "Democratic nominee""

bruh. c'mon

6/8/2016 10:23:53 PM

^^
looking more likely every week to anyone who's paying attention

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi-admits-finding-additional-info-on-clinton-server-during-e-mail-investigation/

6/8/2016 11:36:49 PM

lawnewz.com

seems legit

6/8/2016 11:48:21 PM

^^ what's the bet? since the implication is I'm not paying attention, it should be easy money for you.

6/9/2016 12:15:04 AM

^ maybe they just inderstand how a democrat's brain works

6/9/2016 12:22:35 AM

totally shocked that the dude who thought Clinton was forced to resign as Secretary of State is posting articles from fringe sites

SHOCKED

6/9/2016 12:45:39 AM

Yah that hot take of his failed miserably.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 1:00 AM. Reason : As is this one tbh]

6/9/2016 1:00:28 AM

It's Dan Abrams website but okay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Abrams

6/9/2016 1:40:05 AM

It's reporting on a court filing that is reported other places, the literally even include the source document

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM. Reason : But they spelled it with a z, so ignore ]

6/9/2016 5:52:49 AM

better from that site than gossip cop or geekosystem, I guess

6/9/2016 9:13:55 AM

MSM have been days or weeks late on everything.

Abrams is ahead of the curve.

6/9/2016 9:19:34 AM

ITTT, lefties are arguing each other over their "unapproved" websites.

Nice to see someone else cite a source that isn't huffpo, motherjones, npr etc and then get bitched at for it

6/9/2016 9:54:06 AM

Its just the HRC defense squad tripping over their own toes

6/9/2016 9:59:51 AM

Yes, the website that has articles titled "Ann Coulter Comes to Trump’s Defense: We’ve Gone ‘Mental’ on ‘White Judges’ For 40 Years" and "Yale Students Seek to Abolish ‘Oppressive’ Courses That Include White Poets Like Shakespeare" the spells news with a fucking z seems like a reasonable place for unbiased commentary on the email scandal.

6/9/2016 12:07:09 PM

they link to the filing:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12

6/9/2016 12:09:55 PM

That totally legitimizes their commentary.

6/9/2016 12:34:02 PM

Quote :

"I learned about the electoral college and voting process in eighth grade Civics and again in 10th grade US history/govt. Pretty sure it's brought up in school."

We learned about electoral college (id assume everyone did) but my statement was that most americans do not understand the electoral college.

We didn't learn about primaries at all and I'm pretty sure 2008 was the first time i heard the term "superdelegate". I've never seen primaries on a school curriculum anywhere.

6/9/2016 12:34:35 PM

^^
yes, the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC is untrustworthy because he allows conservative commentators on his website

6/9/2016 12:37:56 PM

Cool strawman bro.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 12:39 PM. Reason : still waiting on your bet btw]

6/9/2016 12:38:50 PM

idk why you're so constantly aggressive. No, I do not want to bet you. I'm not in this to prove that I'm right and you're wrong.

6/9/2016 1:25:15 PM

Quote :

"idk why you're so constantly aggressive."

Dude post stalks you anytime you say something that might have been contrary to something you said years ago.

Because you know, people don't change over time I guess.

6/9/2016 1:29:51 PM

^^ I never thought it aggressive to point out a strawman, but to each their own I spose.

So what's the timeline for this indictment? Before the convention I assume. This month?


[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM. Reason : awwwww fans! where's my blushing emoti...]

6/9/2016 1:38:45 PM

You've never given any reason why the commentary is illegitimate. I assumed it was because of what MONGO said.

No one knows the timeline. You're just coming across as a douche by making snide comments to anyone who speculates that she might be legitimately in trouble.

Obama hasn't endorsed yet, Sanders isn't dropping out even after meeting with him. So many open interpretations.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2016 1:44:38 PM

"Might be" would be one thing. But acting like it's nearly a forgone conclusion because of wishful thinking is another.

And why would Sanders drop out when he can take his message movement to the convention and spend his political capital on influence? Thinking him not dropping out is due to the inevitability of a HRC indictment is also wishful thinking imo.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 1:59 PM. Reason : and I think the Obama endorsement is coming very soon]

6/9/2016 1:55:49 PM

He just endorsed. So given that, I think indictment is unlikely, unless he is retaining some kind of deniability.

6/9/2016 2:09:16 PM

i don't see how anyone can look at the emails and the OIG report and not conclude that someone is getting indicted, i think the only question is who they go after

6/9/2016 2:11:21 PM

Indict someone, sure. But that's not what the conversation has been about.

6/9/2016 2:13:46 PM

you're right, the conversation on this page has been your goalielax-like glee that the democratic party has just passed another milestone on their path of squashing the liberal part of their party.

you've definitely been agressive and argumentative on this page, which is pretty strange. sanders was never supposed to win the nomination, but that doesn't mean that any liberal should be excited about that. the happiness and excitement that users like yourself and goalielax have is odd and confusing.



[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2016 2:16:33 PM

I voted for Bernie. I love his message. I wanted him to win. But that doesn't mean I have to want HRC to be indicted in order to get him elected and strengthen the progressive voice in the Democratic party. Maybe I'm not a true progressive or something in your eyes. I don't care.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 2:31 PM. Reason : and no, the conversation has been about indictment. but it sounds like that's wrapping up now eh.]

6/9/2016 2:26:55 PM

yeah even real clinton supporters aren't excited. the people who are excited are just trying to get back at bernie supporters for coming off as elitist.

6/9/2016 7:58:51 PM

I suspect real Clinton supporters are very excited. Just don't know how many actual real supporters she has.

6/9/2016 9:28:15 PM

Elitist you say?

6/9/2016 9:29:32 PM

Quote :

"goalielax-like glee"

why are you so angry?

6/9/2016 9:45:42 PM

^^ is that better or worse than sitting in $1,000 seats for a playoff game?

Seriously, who gives a fuck what she wears? There are literally a thousand other things more important to worry about with regards to her.

[Edited on June 9, 2016 at 9:57 PM. Reason : Also if that's the jacket it's awful]

6/9/2016 9:57:11 PM

it's just a good eyeroll sample of irony.
might as well be memed up:

"scumbag hillary speaks on income inequality"
:scumbag pic:
"wears $12k jacket to speech"

6/9/2016 11:03:04 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, who gives a fuck what she wears?"

Republicans and scorched earth Bernie supporters.

Quote :

"is that better or worse than sitting in $1,000 seats for a playoff game?"

Same shit. She was talking about income equality at the time. Bernie lives and breathes that message.

6/9/2016 11:54:19 PM

Don't particularly agree with all this editorial published at Politico, but have to admit, good schadenfreude in seeing the liberal left have the race card played against them.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948

Quote :

"How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats’ Racial Rift The socialist’s revolution never interested most minority voters. And his adopted party seems oblivious. By ISSAC J. BAILEY June 08, 2016 But as [Trump's] racial gaffes have claimed the spotlight, far less appreciated is what has been happening in the opposing party. Democrats face their own racial split that could haunt the party well into the future if it isn’t handled properly now. Though it might offend his uber-progressive supporters to hear this, the Sanders insurgency is largely a white revolution. All the talk about Sanders representing the future of the Democratic Party because of his overwhelming popularity among young people leaves out an important caveat: He couldn’t persuade minority voters to sign on. In many ways a Sanders victory, propelled by the least diverse states in the nation, would have been a step backward in American race relations. Now that Hillary Clinton has laid claim convincingly to the nomination with decisive wins in California and New Jersey, the party—and Bernie’s supporters—are at a crossroads. If they insist on maintaining their purist divide from Clinton, they will create a rift in the party that’s not just ideological, but racial. Barring an asteroid strike that extinguishes life on Earth, the American electorate will be much more diverse in coming elections than it is today, especially the portion of it that Democrats plan to rely on. There are now more non-white than white babies being born every year, and the under-18 crowd is close to reaching majority-minority status as well. That’s the Democrats’ greatest potential strength, which grows only more pronounced the closer Trump comes to being officially named the GOP nominee. But it’s also a fault line. Sanders coming from seemingly nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton while drawing historically large and enthusiastic crowds has soaked up much of the attention in the Democratic race, making it feel as though he’s hit a chord that resonates throughout the party. But his brand of idealism has been rejected by the majority of minority voters—Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. On top of that, they have been mocked by some Sanders supporters for supposedly “voting against their self-interest” because they refuse to believe a political revolution is at hand. That has been particularly galling to black voters who had to endure claims from conservatives in 2008 that they were voting for Barack Obama only because of race—even though they had spent their entire adult lives voting mostly for white presidential candidates. Now their preference for Clinton’s brand of pragmatism, something they’ve seen result in real progress time and again, is being questioned as well, this time by fellow Democrats. Read any number of pieces analyzing the Democratic race and it becomes clear just how unaware the party is about the racial land mines. They present data showing a racial divide within Democratic ranks but discount it, displaying a kind of wishful thinking indicative of those who don’t fully appreciate the power of race to shape relationships. Jonathan Chait came closest to recognizing the looming problem in a piece that was published in early April, detailing why black voters are pragmatists: “That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.” As perceptive as that analysis is, it fails to fully account for the racial divide. The tensions within the party aren’t only about purity vs. pragmatism; they have to do with how life is lived and perceived. And though millennials aren’t stuck in the mud on race the way the generations that came before them can be—in large part because they don’t have scars from the 20th century's contentious civil rights battles—they are not ushering the country into a post-racial age as some have claimed. People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough. Minority voters are more likely than white Democratic voters to giddily give Obama credit for an economic recovery that has shaved the unemployment rate in half, produced the lowest level of jobless claims since the ‘70s, and an unprecedented monthly job creation streak that has lasted more than six years, all coming on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And he got Osama bin Laden, saved the domestic auto industry, ushered through the largest economic stimulus in history—one derisively dismissed as too small by many liberals—and the first significant Wall Street reform in a generation, while advancing gay rights like no president before him despite the initial reluctance by his numerous religious black voters to embrace same sex marriage. Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities. That’s why, despite what looks like intractable problems to white Democrats, minority voters are more optimistic about the future than their white counterparts. That Obama was able to become president and get stuff done is an enormous source of not only pride, but hope. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than half of young black and Latinos believe their lives will be better than their parents, compared with less than a third of young white people. On many measures, black people have seen much worse days—the black unemployment rate neared 17 percent at the height of the Great Recession and is less than half that now—even as they continue fighting decades-long struggles. Things aren’t perfect, but the progress that has occurred during the Obama era isn’t something they want ignored or downplayed. Given that reality, why would they believe in the need for a revolution? That’s why Clinton’s full embrace of Obama during the campaign and her promise to improve, not dismantle, his policies was political brilliance in a Democratic primary in which a candidate can’t expect to win without a large share of the minority vote. The only way so many talented writers and political observers could miss the racial divide within the Democratic Party this election cycle is to either ignore the overwhelming data, or to forget (or pretend) that young, minority Democratic voters don’t exist. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has shown that Clinton’s victories look much more like the Democratic Party—which, with a projected 54 percent white vote this year, will be majority-minority long before the country is—than do Sanders’ wins. Even in Sanders’ upset in Michigan, pundits were claiming he had made a breakthrough with black voters because he lost them only by 35 percent points. And exit polling data in Nevada that showed him edging Clinton among Hispanics is widely suspected to be wrong, given where Clinton racked up votes in that state."

6/12/2016 7:50:23 AM

Quote :

"Think about this. According to Reuters/Ipsos polling in February, the Vermont senator received his strongest support among black voters from those aged 18-29—but only a third of that group backed him. That’s right. For all the talk about Sanders’ unqualified young voter support, Clinton had a double-digit lead among the youngest black voters nationwide. Data from the Pew Research Center underscores the importance of not confusing white young voters for all young voters. It found that nearly 60 percent of Hispanics are either millennials or younger. The same can be said of half of black Americans and 46 percent of Asian-Americans, compared with only 39 percent of white Americans. Each of those groups may be turned off by Trump and have more sympathetic views of #BlackLivesMatter than their parents, but that should not be mistaken for lock-step agreement on some of the most vexing issues we face. Research shows that white millennials’ views on important racial measures—believing that blacks are lazier and worse off financially because of lack of motivation—is eerily similar to their parents and grandparents, though they are less likely to proclaim it publicly. That will have a direct impact on policy decisions going forward. The racial blind spots evident among otherwise perceptive pundits and Democratic officials reminds me of the “Friends” era. That comedy dominated TV, fueled mostly by white viewers, while one of the top shows among black viewers at the same time was “Girlfriends” on BET. White viewers could list the quirks of Elaine and George on “Seinfeld” in rapid fire succession as black viewers wondered about the latest shenanigans of Cole and Bruh Man on “Martin.” Neither group knew much about popular telenovelas on Univision or noticed the lack of Asian-American leads on the highest-rated network shows. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that roughly 68 percent of young white people socialize with mostly or only white people while about two-thirds of young blacks and Latinos report they have a more diverse set of friends and acquaintances. But a fragmented viewership framed by racial divides is less concerning than is a fragmented vision within a major political party. Obama saved the party from having to cope with that reality in 2008 because his liberalism was more liberal than Clinton’s, at least it was perceived to be. That attracted young white voters, as Sanders is doing this year. But he also had minority voters excited. Clinton, for all of her supposed faults, has run a campaign so tactically effective she has been able to pull together a coalition similar to Obama’s. This may be even more impressive than what Obama accomplished given that she is the ultimate insider in an anti-establishment year. The things that have convinced white progressives, and a handful of high-profile black intellectuals and personalities, that she isn’t worthy of the nomination have not turned off minority voters, young or old. She’s been so effective this year probably because she couldn’t ignore the racial divide during her bruising primary battle with Obama. In some ways, she exploited that divide. As she fell behind in 2008, she began talking about “hard-working white Americans” while her husband downplayed Obama’s important victory in South Carolina, where more than half of the Democratic primary voters are black. History has repeated itself, with Sanders and his surrogates seemingly dismissing the results in the South—a region that is home to a majority (54 percent) of black Americans. (The Northeast, by comparison, is home to 18 percent of black Americans.) After Sanders tried but couldn’t connect with enough minority voters—despite the best efforts of Cornel West, Michelle Alexander, Spike Lee and Rosario Dawson, among others—his campaign began focusing mostly on white voters to win the nomination the way Clinton tried to do eight years ago. While the GOP’s effort to turn out more white voters because it has failed to make the party more palatable to minority voters gets the most attention, the two strongest challengers within the Democratic Party during the past two contested primary cycles essentially tried to do the same. That should be more troubling for a party that is supposedly embracing diversity than a party that lost its hold on the minority vote half a century ago. The evidence of the racial divide lies even within the general election matchup polls Sanders and his supporters love to cite. He leads in a potential matchup with Trump by a larger margin than does Clinton. But that’s largely because Clinton’s minority voters would eagerly back Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Latinos hold a similar rate of favorability for Clinton and Sanders and would vote for either Democrat against Trump in nearly the same percentage, according to a poll by Latino Decisions. Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well. Even if Sanders supporters come around to vigorously try to defeat Trump, as most expect to happen come November, the racial reckoning would only have been delayed. The GOP has whiffed on the emerging racial dynamics of the country because it seems stuck in a defensive crouch, borne of having to weather (oftentimes) unfair and exaggerated claims of racism. But the GOP remains willfully blind to the racial angst that animates too many in its party, or the disparate racial impact of some of the party’s signature policies, such as voter ID laws, and the hostility its base has for comprehensive immigration reform. But Republican vulnerabilities are not automatically Democratic strengths. Democrats may end up whiffing on this issue, too, because the party may succumb to the myth that an increase in diversity is a balm for deep, racial wounds that date back to before this country’s founding. Diversity, they should realize, brings its own set of problems and tensions. Many Sanders supporters believed his push to regulate Wall Street and solve economic inequality would resonate with minority voters. It didn’t because minority voters know that liberal policies alone won’t reverse decades of racial inequalities. They have been loyal members of liberal unions where white Democrats received plush jobs, even if they were no more qualified than their black colleagues. They’ve seen the same thing in liberal Hollywood and the supposedly liberal world of the media, whose top ranks remain mostly white. Even though the senator from Vermont began speaking about criminal justice and other types of racial reform, minority voters weren’t convinced he would make those policies a priority. Democrats can waste time debating why minority voters should have connected better with Sanders—and get caught in a condescending discussion about why white Sanders supporters know what’s better for minority voters than minorities do themselves—or they can begin the more difficult work of coming up with strategies to deal with a divide that will show itself in a more pronounced and public way once Trump exits stage left."

Not really a surprise to anyone that ever followed contested statewide Democratic primaries (both federal and state races) in Southern states over the years. Obama is the only person I can think of where the blacks and the liberal left supported the same guy.

6/12/2016 7:52:12 AM