US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[james]

I think it's because Trump focused more on the economy and pushed aside social issues. It's hard to really care about transgender bathrooms or #blacklivesmatter or abortion or whatever the hot-button social issue of the day is when your wage growth is stagnant and your employment prospects look dimmer by the day.

Trump and Bernie were the 2 candidates who made the economy the prime focus of their campaigns, and while Bernie lost he still did much better than nearly anyone could have imagined when he first joined.

Yes thats a big part and it will hurt Hillary.

Trump is going to be talking about creating American jobs with simple, effective measures.

Hillary is going to be babbling on about policy this and theory that.

Trump WILL take Ohio and Michigan. You heard it here first.

[james]

HillaryGAF (to use for some examples since I bathed in there today) sure has a burning and ever growing hatred for a losing old man from Vermont who agrees with their queen "93% of the time" and I haven't seen anything like it outside of Lakers fans circa 2009-2011.

"i loathe the man", "do-nothing Senator", "he has gone too far", "the most delusional man in this primary season", "He is an idiot. Asshole. Senile. Grandpa.", "the Democratic party needs to start taking full Chipotle fueled dumps on him", "if it were up to Bernie Sanders alone, my friends and family would have no access to health insurance", "selfish egotist just wants to continue his cult of personality", "he's got a martyr/victim complex", "shitty personality", "he started this, it's his job to unite the party", "angry old out of touch loon", "people like Bernie can afford to be selfish because their rights aren't on the line in this election"

And that's what they say about him. Not the braindead uninformed liberal left-wing loser college kids and voters he's scammed out of their virginity.

I mean sure, whatever, Sanders supporters are as nuts as the rest, and his campaign's never scaled up properly from a 5% Kucinich-Paul2008 style protest deal and we've known he'd lost from before Iowa. Tearing into people and their hero and demanding THEY suck it up and follow The Party is the exact way you aren't going to get these people you're so concerned about to turn out for Hillary or in mid-terms. (The Anti-Hillary protest vote that's been lifting Bernie to 50/50 status will settle for her over Trump and does vote.)

In short, I'm mainly just concerned about the fact that this is how they treat their nominal allies. How are they going to react when Trump wins?

 

This is why I susbcribe to your newsletter

[Phoenix Dark]

Honestly it seems like the yas queen Hillary stuff is a reaction to the fact that she's not really inspiring much enthusiasm among anyone.

[Mupepe]

Honestly it seems like the yas queen Hillary stuff is a reaction to the fact that she's not really inspiring much enthusiasm among anyone.

Except Andy

[benjipwns]

Honestly it seems like the yas queen Hillary stuff is a reaction to the fact that she's not really inspiring much enthusiasm among anyone.

get with the times old man



she's what Obama claimed he would be

[Trent Dole]

Were people this mad at Nader back in the day? Sorry some folks actually aimed higher than centrist mediocrity, how dare they!

Again as noted quite a bit recently they voted the same in congress 93% of the time, I'm with her over crazy orange wall man anyday.

[Phoenix Dark]

Given that Hillary stayed in longer and was arguably being a far bigger dick about it (ie her/Bill making racial arguments for why Obama would lose white voters, playing the Farrakhan card, etc) I'm not really upset about Bernie. It's clear Hillary has moved on and is aiming at Trump.

This will probably be over after CA votes. If Bernie wants to "go to the convention" after Hillary clinches the nom...who cares? I doubt he'd do it anyway. Everyone always says they're going to the convention (see: Kasich, Cruz, Carson, etc).

[Brehvolution]

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/its_not_about_sexism_camille_paglia_on_trump_hillarys_restless_bitterness_and_the_end_of_the_elites/

And is there anything creepier than that current Hillary meme, the campaign slogan "I'm with her"? The blurred borderlines of those pronouns ("I" numbly dissolving into "her") and that ambiguous preposition ("with" her like a child, a lover, or a nurse's aide with a geriatric patient?) are close to pathological. The Hillary acolytes are joined at the hip to "her", the Great Leader Who Needs No Name, the Maternal Tit daubed in wormwood, the bitter toxin left by men—those spoilers of the universe who created the master structures of modern civilization that provide us put-upon gals with jobs, transportation, abundant food, clean water, housing, electricity, and a magical disease-spurning municipal sewage system that only men seem required to clean and repair.

[Mandark]

That's basically a search-and-replace away from being a Stormfront rant on how white people built civilization.  Nice.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

[Phoenix Dark]

and a magical disease-spurning municipal sewage system that only men seem required to clean and repair.

How come we don't have female waste management workers>>>how come we still have monkeys

[Joe Molotov]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

No Taco Bell? #NeverTrump

[Mandark]

He's gonna post a picture of himself eating fried chicken on Juneteenth, isn't he?

[octopushover]

Honestly it seems like the yas queen Hillary stuff is a reaction to the fact that she's not really inspiring much enthusiasm among anyone.

yeah instead of these forced memes why can't they get real dank memes like #feelthebern

[Phoenix Dark]

Given that Hillary stayed in longer and was arguably being a far bigger dick about it (ie her/Bill making racial arguments for why Obama would lose white voters, playing the Farrakhan card, etc) I'm not really upset about Bernie. It's clear Hillary has moved on and is aiming at Trump.

This will probably be over after CA votes. If Bernie wants to "go to the convention" after Hillary clinches the nom...who cares? I doubt he'd do it anyway. Everyone always says they're going to the convention (see: Kasich, Cruz, Carson, etc).

Clinton was down by something like 60-70 pledged delegates. Bernie is down 300 pledged delegates and 3.1 million votes.

Yes but she also had no path to the nomination outside of super delegate fuckery. Obama was fighting her to near ties/split delegates in various spring states, similarly to what Hillary is doing now; as an example Hillary barely beat Obama in Indiana, just as Sanders barely beat Hillary there on Tuesday. And let's not forget she was also insinuating that an Obama nomination would usurp the will of the majority due to her "winning" the popular vote [based on Michigan and Florida contests where Obama wasn't on the ballot].

So I don't want to hear any whining or hand wringing about this.

[Mandark]

Yeah, I remember the Calvinball arguments about process, as well as the lowkey racism of the last few months of the Clinton campaign.  That shit was nooooooooo good.

[benjipwns]

But the Bernie Bros are going to come up with all kinds of reasons not to vote for Hillary! That's not fair! Hillary supporters were always loyal and put party unity first. Something Bernie and his disgusting need to get brain cancer and be put down fans need to learn about and do their duty this fall.

[Syph]

Yeah, I remember the Calvinball arguments about process, as well as the lowkey racism of the last few months of the Clinton campaign.  That shit was nooooooooo good.

wait what calvinball arguments haha im curious

[Samson Manhug]

He's gonna post a picture of himself eating fried chicken on Juneteenth, isn't he?

Odds on whether Trump knows what Juneteenth is are currently at 1,000,000:1 on PredictIt.

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/index.html

lmao, even the Speaker of the House isn't supporting Trump. I'm sure the goal posts will be shifted enough by July so that Trump will have "unified the party" but I'll enjoy the schadenfreude for now.

[Human Snorenado]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/index.html

lmao, even the Speaker of the House isn't supporting Trump. I'm sure the goal posts will be shifted enough by July so that Trump will have "unified the party" but I'll enjoy the schadenfreude for now.

Shockingly, Bushes 41 & 43 aren't planning on attending the convention or endorse Trump. Jeb either.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bushes-no-gop-convention-trump-endorsement

[Phoenix Dark]

Like...who will the keynote speakers be? Trump and his VP, sure. But outside of that...Christie? Bobby Knight? Omarossa?

Meanwhile the DNC will basically have Voltron with Obama, Biden, Slick Willy, and Hillary.

[Human Snorenado]

Like...who will the keynote speakers be? Trump and his VP, sure. But outside of that...Christie? Bobby Knight? Omarossa?

Meanwhile the DNC will basically have Voltron with Obama, Biden, Slick Willy, and Hillary.

Don't forget Palin, she endorsed early. Gonna be such a shitshow.

 

[TakingBackSunday]

Clint Eastwood again, maybe?

[jakefromstatefarm]

Rex Ryan/Bill Belichick?

[brob]

That's basically a search-and-replace away from being a Stormfront rant on how white people built civilization.  Nice.

Paglia hasn't written anything inspired since her paean to the arch of a man's piss, unfortunately. 

[Madrun Badrun]

Clint Eastwood again, maybe?

This time the chair talks and he listens

[benjipwns]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/spies-worry-candidate-trump-will-spill-secrets.html

After Donald Trump is formally chosen as the Republican presidential nominee, he’ll be able to receive classified U.S. intelligence briefings, which could include some of the same sensitive information that President Obama is given in the Oval Office.

And that prospect has some spies sweating. Trump, who can’t seem to dam his stream of consciousness on Twitter, and who has lately taken to spreading rumors and conspiracy theories on national television, has never been privy to national secrets. Nor has he ever demonstrated that he’s capable of keeping them.

“My concern with Trump will be that he inadvertently leaks, because as he speaks extemporaneously, he’ll pull something out of his hat that he heard in a briefing and say it,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who has participated in the process of briefing presidential candidates.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/about-those-intelligence-briefings-donald-trump

TPM’s Josh Marshall noted, for example, that Trump will be receiving classified CIA briefings while his campaign chief “works for pro-Putin Russian oligarchs.” Won’t that be interesting.
 
But we can keep going with related questions. What would Trump do, for example, if the CIA told him that his anti-Muslim rhetoric was creating a national security threat?
 
Or more broadly, has anyone started a pool as to when Trump might blurt out sensitive information he’s not supposed to share publicly?

Imagine if he put them on a private e-mail server that a Romanian could easily hack.

[Trent Dole]

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/its_not_about_sexism_camille_paglia_on_trump_hillarys_restless_bitterness_and_the_end_of_the_elites/

And is there anything creepier than that current Hillary meme, the campaign slogan "I'm with her"? The blurred borderlines of those pronouns ("I" numbly dissolving into "her") and that ambiguous preposition ("with" her like a child, a lover, or a nurse's aide with a geriatric patient?) are close to pathological. The Hillary acolytes are joined at the hip to "her", the Great Leader Who Needs No Name, the Maternal Tit daubed in wormwood, the bitter toxin left by men—those spoilers of the universe who created the master structures of modern civilization that provide us put-upon gals with jobs, transportation, abundant food, clean water, housing, electricity, and a magical disease-spurning municipal sewage system that only men seem required to clean and repair.

(Image removed from quote.)

Yes, the ascent of a bigoted asshole who was born rich is the end of the elites.

[Atramental]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

[benjipwns]

Had some fried chicken for dinner. I love the coloreds!

[eleuin]

The GOP was a mistake
 
https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/728051392355573760
 

[Atramental]

[helios]

The GOP was a mistake
 
https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/728051392355573760
 

Keep Austin Hentai

[benjipwns]

 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Given that Hillary stayed in longer and was arguably being a far bigger dick about it (ie her/Bill making racial arguments for why Obama would lose white voters, playing the Farrakhan card, etc) I'm not really upset about Bernie. It's clear Hillary has moved on and is aiming at Trump.

This will probably be over after CA votes. If Bernie wants to "go to the convention" after Hillary clinches the nom...who cares? I doubt he'd do it anyway. Everyone always says they're going to the convention (see: Kasich, Cruz, Carson, etc).

Clinton was down by something like 60-70 pledged delegates. Bernie is down 300 pledged delegates and 3.1 million votes.

Yes but she also had no path to the nomination outside of super delegate fuckery. Obama was fighting her to near ties/split delegates in various spring states, similarly to what Hillary is doing now; as an example Hillary barely beat Obama in Indiana, just as Sanders barely beat Hillary there on Tuesday. And let's not forget she was also insinuating that an Obama nomination would usurp the will of the majority due to her "winning" the popular vote [based on Michigan and Florida contests where Obama wasn't on the ballot].

So I don't want to hear any whining or hand wringing about this.

Even further than that, when the primaries were all over and Obama won, Hillary proposed a deal where she would be the Presidential nominee and Obama would be the VP.  So even at the very end when she clearly lost, she still acted like she won.

There's just one month and just over one week left anyway until the last primary in Washington DC, I see no reason for Sanders to drop out now.

[Mupepe]

Hillary was kind of hot in the early 90s.

[Brehvolution]

Clint Eastwood again, maybe?

This time the chair talks and he listens

I always thought it was great optics that republicans levied all their complaints to an Obama that didn't exist. It was such a subtle troll on the base.

[Madrun Badrun]

http://abc7chicago.com/news/tow-truck-driver-says-he-thinks-god-told-him-not-to-help-disabled-sanders-supporter/1324951/

[benjipwns]

https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/593031420862025

AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA

TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:

(…or, stated more simply)

TO: The majority of America:

Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:

**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”

**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”

**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”

**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”

This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”

Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.

I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:

[Madrun Badrun]

Nothing has made me prouder to be a Canadian than this election cycle.  New Heritage Moment should be a Canadian family watching the primary debates then turning off the TV and smiling to each other smugly. 

[benjipwns]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872

NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton’s supporters in recent days have been making a furious round of calls to top Bush family donors to try to convince them that she represents their values better than Donald Trump, multiple sources in both parties told POLITICO.

The moves come as Clinton and the Democratic Party try to take advantage of deep unease among establishment Republicans on Wall Street and elsewhere with Trump’s emergence as the presumptive Republican nominee.

Top targets for the Clinton team include people like Woody Johnson, Jeb Bush’s former finance chair and the owner of the New York Jets. In recent days, Bush’s brother and father, former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, have said they plan to skip Trump’s nominating convention.

One person close to Clinton said supporters of the former secretary of state drew up a list of Wall Street donors who supported Jeb Bush and other unsuccessful Republican candidates months ago but wanted to wait until Trump locked down the nomination before beginning to make the calls.

“I’m not worried about it at all,” the CEO of one large bank said this week. “[Trump] is going to lose and we will all wake up after election day and things will be just like they’ve been the last eight years with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress.”

Another bank CEO who has supported politicians in both parties laughed when asked if there would be a massive exodus to Clinton in the wake of Trump emerging as the presumptive nominee. “First of all I don’t think it would be helpful to her for a bunch of Wall Street people to come out in support,” he said. “And he’s probably not going to win and if he did it would probably be OK.”

Best part:

So far, the nonchalant reaction to Trump among executives is also reflected in the financial markets. Stocks are off slightly since Trump’s remaining rivals all dropped out but there has been no major reaction either in the U.S. or globally.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Hillary Clinton allying herself with the Bush donor network, a great message to fire up Sanders' base.

[Atramental]

http://abc7chicago.com/news/tow-truck-driver-says-he-thinks-god-told-him-not-to-help-disabled-sanders-supporter/1324951/

One of MANY reasons why I don't put any political bumper stickers on my car down here in Jebus Land.

[benjipwns]

You'd put political bumper stickers on your car?  I had such respect.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

My favorite car in the parking lot on campus for a couple years was this one that had a "Kucinich 2004" sticker on it still in 2011-12.

[close]

[Atramental]

I was going to mention in a spoiler that I would never put a political bumper sticker on my car in general but I'm making pancakes and didn't want them to burn.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also, my true political identity is a constantly morphing blob that secretly wants benevolent machines to manage everything.

[close]

[benjipwns]

[Great Rumbler]

https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/728051392355573760
 

No lies detected.

[Joe Molotov]

I want to ironically put a Herman Cain bumper sticker on my car.

[Syph]

I want to ironically put a Herman Cain bumper sticker on my car.

is there another way?

[benjipwns]

I want to ironically put a Herman Cain bumper sticker on my car.

is there another way?

I think most people use like a credit card or their drivers license.

[Mandark]

Yeah, I remember the Calvinball arguments about process, as well as the lowkey racism of the last few months of the Clinton campaign.  That shit was nooooooooo good.

wait what calvinball arguments haha im curious

The main one was about Michigan and Florida.  They moved their primaries up on the calendar against the wishes of the national party, so they would not get to send voting delegates based on that.  This was all understood well in advance.  Nobody campaigned in those states, and beforehand all the candidates had basically agreed to not challenge the DNC about counting the delegates.

Except Clinton won both states (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and "uncommitted" got like 40%), and when it became clear she didn't have an actual path, started talking about how terrible and undemocratic it would be to disenfranchise the voters of those two states.

I think her campaign also pushed the idea that she was ahead in the popular vote and therefor the winner, but basically doing a tally which awarded no votes for caucus states, counted Michigan and Florida, and didn't assign any of the "uncommitted" votes to Obama.

I'm sure there's a ton of fuckery I'm not remembering.  Clinton was closer in delegates then than Sanders was now, and her people had expected to win it, so they did not accept the loss easily.

[benjipwns]

Clinton advisers said they would appeal to the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee[119][120] to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated. However, even under the most favorable seating arrangement, she would not have been able to take a lead in pledged delegates and would have had to rely on superdelegates to win the nomination. On May 31, the rules committee accepted the Michigan state party's 69-59 distribution of pledged delegates and restored half votes to Florida's and Michigan's delegations. This resulted in a net gain for Clinton of 24 pledged delegates. Obama remained significantly ahead, with a lead of 137 pledged delegates before the Puerto Rico primary on June 1.

Ha, even the Michigan and Florida delegates didn't help much without the superdelegates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html

MARCH 20, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton needs three breaks to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Senator Barack Obama in the view of her advisers.

She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states.

She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June.

And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are free to decide which candidate to support overturn his lead among the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses.

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s last-minute trip to Michigan on Wednesday, Democrats there signaled that they are unlikely to hold a new primary. That apparently dashed Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of a new showdown in a state she feels she could win, and it left the state’s delegates in limbo.

The inaction in Michigan followed a similar collapse of her effort to seek another matchup with Mr. Obama in Florida, where, as in Michigan, she won an earlier primary held in violation of party rules.

Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him.

If there is a road to victory for Mrs. Clinton, it is a fairly narrow one. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, said the campaign believed that when the primary voting was done, Mrs. Clinton would have a lead in the overall popular vote, that Mr. Obama’s lead in delegates would be relatively narrow and that polls would show her in a stronger position than Mr. Obama.

No less important, the campaign hopes that Mr. Obama will have been battered by five rough weeks that raise questions about his past, including the pastor’s incendiary comments, that would underscore Mrs. Clinton’s warning to Democrats that they were rallying around someone who was untested and unvetted.

“The superdelegates are not going to really decide until June,” Mr. Penn said. “He’s just going through a vetting and testing process that didn’t happen a year ago and is now happening. The whole vetting and testing process will make a big difference.”

And it is increasingly concerned that any sign that the window is closing could lead a Democrat like Al Gore or Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step in and urge Democrats to back Mr. Obama in the interest of unity.

“The popular vote is the popular vote for all to see,” said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “For people to claim that because the delegates weren’t seated you can’t count the popular vote seems somewhat goofy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/politics/07cnd-pundits.html

MAY 8, 2008

Very early this morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton’s continued viability as a presidential candidate.

The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”

It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Mr. Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Mr. Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign indicated early this morning that it would try to prove the commentariat wrong once again. “Pundits have gleefully counted Senator Clinton out before, and each time they have been wrong, because they don’t decide this race — voters do,” Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, wrote in an e-mail message. “And as the results in Indiana demonstrated, voters are rewarding Senator Clinton with victories, even in states Senator Obama predicted victory in.”

Mr. Wolfson’s statement came in quick response to a request for comment that was sent to him by e-mail after 2 a.m. Eastern time — an indication of the campaign’s eagerness to undo the new conventional wisdom before it hardens.

And the campaign held a conference call with reporters this morning to send the clear signal that nothing had changed overnight.

Pointing to Mrs. Clinton’s victory in Indiana, and her inroads with what he called swing voters, Geoff Garin, her lead strategist, told the gathered reporters, “We think the results last night strengthen the case that she will be the strongest candidate for the Democratic Party in November.”

Asked if the harsh assessments on television and in the blogosphere would not drive superdelegates to Mr. Obama, Mr. Wolfson said, “Thankfully for us the punditocracy does not control this nominating process — voters do and voters gave us an important victory in Indiana.”

As of this afternoon, the climb for her seemed steeper. Mr. Obama’s campaign responded to the Clinton conference call with one of its own that included some big-name party leaders and superdelegates, among them the last Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, who declared, “Barack Obama took a giant and possibly decisive step toward the nomination.” Minutes earlier, CNN had broken in with news from The Associated Press: Another former nominee was breaking for Mr. Obama, former Senator George McGovern, of South Dakota, which will vote along with Montana on June 3, the last primaries of the contest.

oooh the big McGovern endorsement (r.i.p. in peace)

[Oblivion]

Like...who will the keynote speakers be? Trump and his VP, sure. But outside of that...Christie? Bobby Knight? Omarossa?

James Woods. 

[benjipwns]

[benjipwns]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robbins/fix-our-election-system_b_9847102.html

A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve?

Mr. Charnin and others who study this issue contend that there are strong indications of election fraud in the Democratic primaries. We might not like it, it might make us uncomfortable, but the numbers and the statistics suggest that something untoward is happening. I understand the immensity of the message being sent. I am being told to shut up about this. I get it. But forgive me for not trusting the Washington Post or any of the mainstream media to put their resources into real investigative journalism that could get to the bottom of this. In the past, mainstream media has shown itself to be a willful participant in propagating political narratives sympathetic to establishment interests, narratives that are untrue and ultimately detrimental to the citizens the press purports to serve.

So forgive me for having doubts about the recent numbers in the New York primary. I noticed a huge discrepancy between the CNN exit polls, which had Hillary up by 4 percent, and the end results that had her up 16 percent. There was a 7.8 percent discrepancy in Massachusetts and in the Ohio primary a 10 percent discrepancy. The margin of error on exit polls is 4 percent.

If this was one of the elections we monitor overseas wouldn’t we call foul? A 16-point difference? In Florida 2000 we called foul. In Ohio 2004 we called foul. But Bernie Sanders’s supporters notice a discrepancy and we are told we are crazy and that exit polls are unreliable. Really?

Most importantly, if we cannot rely on exit polls, then what is to prevent people from hacking into electronic voting machines to change people’s votes? Princeton Professor Ed Felten showed us how easy that is to do. All it takes is knowledge of the software and one voter card with a virus to flip the votes on that machine. Our votes are counted by for-profit, potentially partisan companies using secret proprietary software. Diebold, indicted for bribery, falsifying documents, and “a worldwide pattern of criminal conduct“ after the 2004 election, renamed itself Premier and then was acquired by ES&S. So who currently holds the patent on the software used with ES&S voting machines, estimated to count and tabulate 80 percent of the U.S. vote in the next election? That would be a useful thing to know, wouldn’t it?

Hillary probably is the one who actually killed his wife too and framed him.

[VomKriege]

Polls more reliable than ballots, sure thing mate 

[octopushover]

americans are so paranoid holy shit

[Joe Molotov]

But, you know, just imagine that's Hillary's face.