Bernie Sanders will still be the Democratic Nominee

[zebonaut]

The Delegates will Flip because only Sanders can Obliterate Trump. Hillary will Lose to Trump

[dubyadiprecession]

1. Snake eyes for BS.

[Kokonoe]

2. Why does Hillary keep campaigning

If she already won?

The answer; Bernie is winning.

[iandhr]

66. Really?

Is that way she is way ahead in both the popular vote and delegates.

#feelthemath

[baldguy]

3. .

[BlueMTexpat]

22. Apropos gif!

Love it!

[FSogol]

71. LOL

[PBass]

4. Hillary will steamroll Trump, it won't even be close.

Almost every single newspaper and TV station will endorse Hillary over Trump. Also, she will destroy him during the general election debates.

I would prefer to see Cruz the nominee though, so that Republicans can't use the excuse that Trump "isn't a real conservative". I would like to see her run against the biggest Tea Party asshole available (Cruz) and tear him apart.

[Sancho]

5. Weaver is insane. If there was a mercy rule in politics, they would stop the primary.

Hillary is way ahead in popular votes, delegates, contributions, endorsements from unions, endorsements from political leaders, and polls.

There is no chance for Bernie to win the primary. Weaver is not helping Bernie because he proves the campaign is dishonest. Bernie would be better off to admit he has lost, and make the case that he has a few good points that might be part of the Democratic platform. By attacking the DNC, DWS, and whining about the primary process, all that's happening is that the focus is on stupid stuff and not on policy.

Too bad...

[longship]

7. What about those who have not voted?

I guess we should just scrap presidential primaries and caucuses and just crown Queen Hillary without letting everybody have a say in the matter.

Bow down to Queen Hillary!!! It's her turn!! (Where have we heard that before?)

By the way, she likely cannot win in November because independents despise her, as do Republicans. So god help us all if she obtains the Democratic nomination. That is what all the national polls state very clearly.

[Sancho]

12. So you have demonstrated that you don't understand basic polling...

Crowds and enthusiasm do not predict "non-ignorable, non-respondents". In other words, there are always a loud crowd who don't answer polls or show up for rallies, but they will vote. BTW, young people don't vote.

In the final analysis, Hillary has by far the best chance to be President if the election were held today.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions

[pnwmom]

13. The OP says the super delegates will flip. There's no reason to think they will do so.

Hillary is more than 2,000,000 votes and 200 delegates ahead. There just aren't enough contests ahead for him to catch up, because none of these primaries is winner-take-all.

And four of the next five races are closed primaries, like New York's.

[Cosmocat]

27. She's going to have a good week next week

same basic thing as Trump with the NE industrial states.

[Cosmocat]

32. The process is the process

of course everyone should vote their consciences in the primary.

I vote next week, and will vote Bernie as I have known for almost a year now that I will.

At the same time, the race is right where I saw it back then, too.

Bernie always faced long odds in winning the nomination.

Hillary just has too much name, too much institutional support, etc.

We won't know about the general until after the dust settles.

I do suspect she will pick up more support than people think.

She has been hammered away at by Rs for a quarter century now, and with having such vitriolic opposition in the primary it drug her down to where she is now.

Once the primary clears, things come into focus, everyone takes a breathe, she is probably going to rebound a bit at least.

Again, though, we have to see.

[zalinda]

68. All publicity is good publicity when you want to get your name out there.

The only time when your name is linked to bad publicity is bad, is when you fade away from it. Any one who has stayed in the public eye after bad publicity, will do just fine. You just have to look at some our celebrities and politicians and see the difference. Our country loves the 'sinner' who stands up to the 'man'.

Shes been in the public eye for so long and has done so much damage around the world, that I hope to God she never gets in power again. I will cry for this world.

Z

[Thespian2]

65. I agree...

Her Royal Highness, as president, would give her corporate owners all they want...tRump would also do their bidding...since so many people despise HRH, about 60% of the population, I can't imagine how she could appeal to people like me.

[magical thyme]

19. the "popular vote" doesn't include the caucuses

so no, Hillary is not "way ahead" in popular votes.

[Sancho]

24. Wanna bet...there are more Democratic voters in my county in FL than in all of Iowa or Vermont

You can hold a caucus in BFE if you want, but the reported figures are official. Even if there was a way to count Democrats "perfectly" - Hillary would be way ahead.

You can twist around all you want - Hillary is winning and winning big time.

[magical thyme]

67. Vermont doesn't caucus

Washington, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Kentucky and Maine all had caucuses.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Some of your facts are wrong.

"Hillary is way ahead in...polls." No, she isn't. And she is most especially not ahead in national polls that gage favorable image and trustworthiness. It is Sanders who is way ahead in those polls--way ahead of everybody, not just Clinton, whose favorability and trustworthiness are shockingly low (almost as bad as Trump's). She is also not ahead in national matchups. Sanders beats Trump by twice the margin that Clinton does, and Clinton actually loses to Cruz and Kasich, if I recall correctly. (Last poll I saw, she was losing to two Republicans, and I'm pretty sure that's who they were.)

Also, Sanders just closed the gap in matchups with Clinton They are now tied nationally. And Clinton does dismally among independents, while Sanders soars with independents.

You say she is ahead in the popular vote. But the popular vote in the Democratic primary (especially in closed primaries like NY) is not nearly as important as polls that include independents, who make up 40% of the electorate. Weaver is correct about this. The independent vote in the GE is a huge Clinton vulnerability. Clinton will also draw Republicans out of the woodwork to vote against her. Sanders has no such negatives.

You say she is ahead in contributions. But no one--literally no one in modern history--has done what Sanders has done, financing a national presidential campaign on small donations. This is unprecedented and will greatly please independent voters in particular, and the poor majority in general. No fatcat money! Unheard of!

You say she's ahead on endorsements from unions, but you fail to mention that many of those endorsements are by union leaders who have not consulted their membership. And endorsements from "political leaders" may well be a liability in the GE. Most Americans perceive that our "political leaders" have presided over the disappearance of their once fairly prosperous, middle class status. It is not likely to be a good year for establishment leaders.

You say "there is no chance for Bernie to win the primary." Well, that is not true so long as Clinton hasn't won it yet, and there are still plenty of delegates out there in the upcoming state primaries. Sanders if fact can win it. And he can also prevent Clinton from winning it, so that the issue goes to the convention.

You say, "the focus is on stupid stuff and not on policy." Really, come on! There has never been a more issue-oriented candidate than Sanders. And I'm not sure what you are calling "stupid stuff" but if you mean massive voter disenfranchisement, that is not "stupid." That is the bottom line of democracy.

I think you're just frustrated with all of the above. You believe in Clinton and don't understand why the majority of people polled don't believe in her--don't trust her, don't like her. This is the problem, as I see it. Clinton's got an constituency within the Democratic Party and nowhere else. And Sanders has even closed the gap within the Democratic Party, because there are many Democrats who are mightily unhappy with establishment politics. Most independents and most Republicans despise her--for whatever reasons, legit or not legit--and won't vote for her. Sanders, on the other hand, clearly has a much broader constituency, is much more liked and trusted, and will draw from all parts of the electorate.

That's why he's staying in.

[BlueMTexpat]

28. Any statistician worth his/her salt

will tell you that national polls are not a good way to gauge primary outcomes in a US Presidential election when individual states drive the voting.

And while you have it right that most Republicans (white males especially) hate Hillary with a passion only equal to that of some Sanders supporters who swarm positive Hillary posts on DU and elsewhere, most Sanders supporters who are Democrats understand the long goal = defeating ANY GOPer. You also forget (or ignore) that there are Independent AND Republican women who would choose Hillary over ANY GOPer because they know exactly how the war on women will go if any GOPer gets into office. They might not be the young ones you likely hang out with, but they have been through the "wars" so to speak and will not forget what those "wars" were like.

In fact, I was surprised last week when I was holding signs for Hillary at early voting in MD. One woman came up to me after she had voted to tell me that she had specifically changed her MD registration from I to D so that she could vote for Hillary. She then continued to say that she was changing back to I for the GE, but that she WILL support Hillary in the GE if she is the candidate.

I know that this doesn't fit your narrative. But it does fit the reality.

[Peace Patriot]

75. "the young ones you likely hang out with"--you mean my grandnieces?

I'm a 70 year old woman. Been thru many a feminist struggle in my long life. And I think women voting for Clinton because she's a woman are blind as bats.

They can't see that Clinton was behind the fascist coup in Honduras, where leftist women peacefully protesting the coup and trying to save some small bit of Mother Earth in environmental struggles are being murdered, raped, beaten, imprisoned by the thousands. Gays are also being targeted.

They can't see what Clinton did to the women of Libya, women being the first victims of war and of U.S. "regime change." And the women of Iraq. Tens of thousands killed, torn to bits by U.S. bombs, or saw their children die of bombs, bullets or disease, millions displaced, unknown tens of thousands suffering rape and oppression. Clinton approved all of this. She has not the slightest concern for any of it. Indeed, she gleefully relished the bayonet rape of the Libyan leader she overthrew, Gaddaffi, before he was murdered. "We came, we saw, he died!" she laughed. On vid. I've never seen anything so hideous as that oblivious laugh--oblivious to the torture, oblivious to horrendous consequences of chaos in Libya, including ISIS moving in--except maybe Bush Jr. hideous giggles about being commander-in-chief.

And the women here whom she and Bill kicked off welfare and whose children were kicked off welfare, to end up in the streets or in jail, by the millions. And the mothers and fathers who can't find work. Millions of them all across America, jobs sent over seas by U.S. "free trade for the rich." Families, communities destroyed by imprisonment, by unemployment, by displacement--as the Clinton's climb up the ladder of power and money.

Bernie Sanders is BY FAR the better candidate for women. It's too bad that some women are too blind, or too self-involved, to see what Hillary Clinton really is--a callous warmonger--who has Henry Fucking Kissinger and Robert Kagan (chief neo-con, architect of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld's blueprint for the ME) as her advisers--and a bought and paid for ally of Wall Street and the banksters--who USES feminism as a sham issue to mask all of this corruption. And she's not even consistent and reliable on THAT. She's willing to compromise with fascists on abortion! As for poor women, let them eat $7.25/hr. And as for poor women in "regime change" countries, they don't even exist to Hillary Clinton.

[BlueMTexpat]

81. It's interesting that you blame

every wrong on Hillary rather than recognizing that she is a cog in a very Big Wheel. Is she perfect? No. Does she always make the right decision? No. Do I wish that she had made different choices in some instances? Yes, very much. But to imply or outright state that she is SOLELY responsible for any of the events you mention is simply preposterous.

Glad to hear that we are of a generation, although I am still senior to you, LOL. Other than that, we really have nothing in common, especially since you believe that I am "too blind or too self absorbed" to see Bernie's virtues. Yes, I am so self-absorbed that I actually volunteered for service to my country at a time when I could have gotten a well-paying job because I was one of the comparatively few four-year college graduates in the early 1960s. That service was not in a military capacity because I am anti-war; it involved living and teaching in a foreign city where I was the lone American citizen. Has Bernie performed anything comparable? Yes, he applied for CO status to avoid going to Vietnam, but did he really do anything - as many of my male colleagues in international development did - to benefit anyone else in the meantime? He is from my era too and chose instead to opt out in Vermont before getting his first full-time job - in politics - in 1981, when he was 40 years old.

I can speak directly to his lack of knowledge in foreign affairs and diplomacy, however, as they are among my specialties. He certainly violated the niceties of diplomacy with his grandstanding visit to the Pope in the middle of a primary election, which placed the Pontiff in an extremely difficult position at a time when he was trying to make a symbolic humanitarian gesture. And Bernie was in Congress during every episode that you mention and blame wholly on Hillary. Why didn't he do anything meaningful then other than occasionally rail against policy? Some of the policies you decry, he actually voted for.

But since you believe that Bernie is "by far the better candidate for women" - why don't you speak to that and tell me what specifically he has done for women and for their concerns about their young children instead of telling me that Hillary is responsible for everything wrong in the universe whether she was in office or not? Please provide specifics of legislation or policies for which Bernie has been directly responsible in actions, rather than in words, that have improved life for women.

It will be a very short list.

[sketchy]

83. Bernie Sanders work experience is more extensive than you know

link:
http://feelthebern.org/who-is-bernie-sanders/

"Before moving to Vermont full-time in 1968, Bernie worked as an aide at a psychiatric hospital in New York, taught low-income preschoolers through Head Start, and helped register people for nutrition assistance programs."



I'd say he's personally helped women and children.

[Sancho]

29. Yawn...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/

BTW, I'm a union member (40 years) and union officer. We interview candidates, poll members, analyze policies, and check at chapter meetings.

Bernie came out THIRD in our union assessment. A few loud claims don't mean a thing. Union "leaders" are union members and elected. There is no reason for a union to endorse anyone except the best candidate that represents their interests.

Sanders is NOT focused on policy. I've listened to him for year on Thom Hartmann. He's grumpy, sometimes interesting, and often wrong on the facts. Free tuition and breaking up banks are not policies. They are unicorns.

I'm not frustrated. Any objective analysis would put her on the top of the list for a Democratic election.

He's going to Burlington to think about dropping out.

[freebrew]

70. A union leader for Hillary/???

no wonder unions are losing out.

What do you think HRC is going to do for labor?

We can't afford education or healthcare....
just all war all the time.

Great candidate you have there.

[Sancho]

73. Listen to some members...

Here in Florida - Bernie was behind Hillary and O'Malley on the issues. We rated him third.

No matter what you say, union members preferred Hillary.

[freebrew]

74. It's a campaign ad...

it says nothing. 'HRC knows the issues, HRC supports us, etc.'
No specifics.

She voted for NCLB?

What has she done for educators or the schools?

I support unions. That said, it doesn't mean that union members are any smarter than the rest of the populace.
I would think that union leaders would know the issues and who would help labor more.

[dreamnightwind]

49. Thank you for this excellent and thoughtful post!

[longship]

6. "We'll see", said the Zen Master.

One thing is for sure. Bernie is in this until the convention.

And about the silly popular vote argument by Hillary and the media, it's fucking irrelevant. Caucus states have low turnout because the caucus delegates represent far more than one voter. Now one can argue that caucuses are not representative, however one cannot simultaneously do that and claim that popular vote majority. Caucuses are different. The only way Hillary and her supporters get to continue screeching "popular vote" is because Hillary cannot win in caucus states, just like in open primary states, just like in November if she gets the nod.

Hillary Clinton loses to the GOP in November because her negatives are so... well, negative. Plus, she does horribly with independents.

Her only campaign strategy for winning the nomination is to drive Bernie's negatives up, a more Rovian "rat-fucking" strategy I could not imagine. But that's where she is. Hence, the fucking inane, silly bullshit about Bernie's Vatican visit. Do Hillary supporters actually think that would work. "What kind of people do they think we are?" (Winston Churchill)

Hillary will lose to the GOP in November if she obtains the nomination.

[leftofcool]

8. Hillary supporters don't care what Bernie's negative are or are not.

We have seen him as irrelevant since Nevada.

[Craig234]

10. jerks for Hillary

It's a good thing for Hillary her supporters like you are hopefully not what people base their vote on.

[OhZone]

16. Yeah, I said he was done after Nevada. Now look at predictwise today!

OHYEAH!

[Enthusiast]

55. Thank you for letting us know how Hillary supporters feel.

[Sancho]

14. I hope Bernie stays in - he's a good sparring partner.

It keeps Hillary in the news and add energy to the Democratic race. More people will register in order to vote in the primary. Bernie still has no path to win.

[classykaren]

18. I guess we will all just have to wait and see .

[Peace Patriot]

34. "Bernie has no path to win." That's not true.

As long as Clinton hasn't won and there are still sufficient delegates out there to be won, Sanders has a path to win the nomination. He can also stop her from winning it outright, so the matter goes to the convention. Sanders did better than Obama against Clinton in NY, even with all that vote suppression happening. And Clinton only gained 30 delegates. Clinton won the U.S. Senate seat in NY twice. It is not a good barometer of what can happen in the remaining states.

Though I think you're right that the Clinton campaign has little energy and would make no news without Sanders, I don't think Clinton can count on Sanders voters. Quite a few may register to vote in order to vote for Sanders but won't vote for Clinton. Her negatives are just too high. And if the Republicans get smart and manage to nominate someone who, by any stretch of the imagination, can be described as "moderate," she will lose in the GE. (She loses to Kasich in national matchups, and I believe to Cruz as well. And she beats Trump by only half the margin that Sanders beats him by.) She has no drawing power among independents and disgruntled Republicans. She has no appeal with young voters. Many will stay home.

Most Sanders supporters do not see Sanders as "a good sparring partner" for Clinton. That demeans him and his supporters--as you probably intended. We see him as President--and as the best president this country has seen since FDR. So we're talking New Deal passion and revolution. We are certainly not in it to jazz up Clinton's coronation.

[Cosmocat]

35. Yeah

people always get too wound up about the opposition in the primary.

And, outside of the extreme vitriol from Bernistas against Hillary here, the actual campaigns between the two have been pretty darn respectable by any standards for a pretty tough primary contest, much less with the 24 hour news cycle and instant media of today.

I have known I was voting Bernie for almost a year now in the primary, much as I have known I would be voting Hillary in the general.

He is a good man, more right on the issues and speaks to progressive policy balls out in such a refreshing way.

But, he always faced LONG odds in beating Hillary in the primary.

[pnwmom]

15. Delegates in primaries also represent many voters. When statisticians calculate

voting numbers in caucuses, they take the precincts ratios into account and "translate" caucus delegate numbers to voter numbers.

According to 538, the independents who vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary are not representative of independents as a whole, and therefore do not predict the votes of the majority of independents.

[BlueMTexpat]

31. That "silly popular vote" notion

is the foundation of democracy.

It is startling to see how swiftly and callously it is dismissed by some Sanders supporters when their candidate does not win.

[dreamnightwind]

40. Uh, did you understood the poster's point?

I think the popular vote point is far more complicated, and we don''t laugh at it.

With many states having caucuses (I wish they didn't), there is no real way to properly weight those in any popular vote total. You can attempt to extrapolate to the state's voting population using ratios from the caucuses, but that isn't accurate, you don't know how many would vote in a non-caucus election nor do you know if they would vote proportionately to the caucus results.

It is even less accurate to only use the caucus totals, since caucus totals are far less than popular vote totals, given the nature of caucuses, so a win in a popular vote state would get weighted far heavier than a win in a similar-sized caucus state.

It's the Democratic Party itself that laughs at the popular vote. Hence the super-delegates. The one thing the party gets right, IMO, is proportionately allocating delegates, rather than the winner-takes-all model.

[BlueMTexpat]

45. I understood the poster's point

perfectly. It is you who do not seem to understand that the caucuses are much more like the SDs you decry.

Those who show up at initial state caucuses represent no one but themselves. They also represent only that segment of a state's population that is physically able to show up at a date, time and place that may prove to be inconvenient for MANY people and remain there for hours and hours. That is why caucuses are per se undemocratic and should be abolished completely.

I have long believed that about caucuses and so do most people I know. It is not simply a revelation I had because my candidate has not done as well in them.

There is literally no way you can extrapolate a popular vote from caucus attendance other than from those voters who showed up.

[dreamnightwind]

48. Now you have misunderstood my point

I said I don't like caucuses, and agree with the reasons you list, very much so.

It's indisputable that superdelegates are undemocratic.

And to your last statement, that there is literally no way to extrapolate... I also agree, my point and the other poster's point (I think) is that this means we have no legitimate measurement of popular vote, no matter how much the Clinton supporters try to say otherwise.

It's probably safe to say Hillary is ahead in the popular vote, but there are no real numbers to fairly represent that, and just adding in the caucus totals certainly doesn't accomplish that. That was where I was coming from, and really all I have to say on the matter. Peace.

[BlueMTexpat]

80. Thanks for your

very reasonable and kind response.

[dreamnightwind]

82. You're quite welcome.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Forked tongued, snakes-in-the-grass, that's Weaver and his BS boss.

This Weaver bozo is completely bonkers, besides being a fabricator extraordinaire.

[Craig234]

11. that snake

Look at all the sniper fire it's dodging!

[Peace Patriot]

36. The snake is the symbol of the ancient goddess.

Better watch out how you misuse it.

And boy, is She pissed about fossil fuels!

[Phil1934]

17. Bernie is winning

because he is forcing Hillary from conservative positions to liberal ones. I got the impression early on Bernie would not have run if someone like Warren had carried the water as it's not ego with him.

[zentrum]

37. Yes, he's...

….gotten her on the record saying some progressive things, that hopefully may come back to bite her as she now veers right for the general. He won the conversation for sure.

One thing no HRC supporter ever explains is how HRC is actually going to "get anything done". The Rightwing despises her. They are going to gin up first year hearings and investigations that will take whatever mojo she comes in with.

Bernie is far from hated by anyone in Congress or in the Republican base. It's hard to see how HRC will be successful in any real way, other than the symbology of the first woman. But it will be an image of "woman as victim" and I wish more than anything we could have Elizabeth Warren who never needs that as her backup strategy.

Pretty depressing to me that the DNC engineered this as the Democratic nominee. We have serious——really serious—— problems, but what we're going to get is four embattled years of "Clinton Scandal", whether real or imaginary. And the danger here is that the Clintons will concede more and more to the right, in an effort to save their own hides, as they always do. That's what "Clinton pragmatism" really decodes as. It's concessions the Clintons make to avoid the heat---- because there's just so much Clinton baggage. Didn't we do this for 8 years already?

I hope to God that Bernie keeps fighting like hell in the Senate for the policies he's got her on the record as supporting.

[greymouse]

21. Although I am #BernieOrBust

I disagree that Hillary is being forced to liberal positions. She would say anything to get elected, but then reverse herself. Her word is laughable. She has no principles.

I still think Bernie has a chance at the nomination, and if he doesn't win it, I am writing him in. Writein votes count in my state. I take satisfaction in knowing that if Hillary gets the nomination, she will not get elected. The massive number of people who would never vote for her will sink that. I'd rather look at crazy Trump than lying, smirking, incompetent Clintons for the next eight years.

[dreamnightwind]

41. Yes, primary to the left, general election and governing to the right is their mantra - eom

[zentrum]

54. Right. It's ...

….not at the level of a "position" for her. (HRC has no real positions, on anything.) What's happened though, is that she's had to go on the record as more liberal. She and her establishment supporters are being forced to talk about things they would never have mentioned. This means that in the general and in the WH she'll have to be a little less gung-ho for neo-con proposals. I guess Bill will go out a "s'plain" them as usual, though.

It will be more of a bald-faced hypocrisy of she goes to bat for the TTP for example. Or for tracking. I have no doubt she'd be campaigning for these things (as she did as SOS) if it wasn't for Bernie and his annoying base.

You're lucky you have write-in in your State.

[Indydem]

23. De' Nile

Ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

25. Bernie better stay around

There are not only current potential indictments that we know about but there may be some we don't know about. There may be a transaction by transaction investigations of her's and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to her's and Bill's actions. Is it true they registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware is to evade and/or avoid something.

[apcalc]

33. Those are all good Republican talking points, I think.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

46. You got it!

That is the point. Why do you think Trump is calling her "crooked Hillary"? They haven't even begun the requests for numerous investigations etc. If she wins, they will start impeachment proceedings on day one and she will not be able to get anything done. That is why she is such a poor candidate. At least Bernie has a vision and even if he doesn't get it all, he will get something compared to Hillary's real world.

[Peace Patriot]

47. Are you saying that the FBI has been wasting a year on...

...Republican talking points?

I don't know whether they will recommend an indictment, or are protecting Clinton and will cover up for her, but one thing they are NOT doing is creating Republican talking points. They could be protecting her from Republican talking points. That's a possibility (drawing this investigation in house, away from Congress, so she can proceed with her coronation). I just don't know and can't guess. They've been awfully quiet.

From what I've seen of the types of evidence they are looking at, she is vulnerable on national security and on Clinton Foundation deals using the Sec of State's office to fill the coffers of the Foundation. I don't know exactly what they are looking at most closely, but I suppose a third possibility is that they think she didn't do anything wrong, or not wrong enough to recommend an indictment. But the length of the investigation, the calling in of the DOJ, the immunity granted to the fellow who set up her private server, and other facts like that, point to serious charges. Could be her aides will take the fall. But that alone could wreck her presidential hopes. And if she herself is recommended for indictment, her presidential campaign is over.

For one thing, it would mean that the intelligence community (including the FBI) opposes her and/or has abandoned her. And she simply can't be president in that circumstance. And, for another, of course, voters will be especially wary. She is already disliked and distrusted, according to numerous polls. This would end any chance she had in the GE. It is a very serious matter.

I tend to think the FBI will shy away from recommending indictment of Clinton--if they are not already in cover up mode--because they do not want to be perceived as interfering with the political life of the country (that is, if they have reason to charge her). Depending on how serious the national security issues are/were, they might go as far as recommending aides for indictment. That may be their way around direct interference. But even that could be fatal to Clinton's chances in the GE, which start out not good.

You gotta wonder what they've been doing for a year. This is not a Republican congressional committee we're talking about. It's the FBI and the DOJ.

[PBass]

26. Everyone needs to watch the video...

If the Hillary camp announced plans to flip the superdelegates, even though she was losing among pledged delegates and losing the popular vote (as Bernie currently is) there would be outrage among the Bernie camp. They're talking about Bernie stealing the nomination here, with back room deals.

I guess when you have Bernie Sanders' level of integrity though, you can get away with things like this. He's so principled! Not like other politicians!

[Hiraeth]

50. They're talking about Bernie stealing the nomination here, with back room deals.

I thought Hilary had already done that

[djean111]

57. IMO anyone who supports Hillary and maunders on about integrity.....

WTF and all that. Oh, and buying super-delegates before a vote was cast - that's integrity? Must be Opposite Day!

[HooptieWagon]

30. If the party wants to beat the GOP and build the party, yes.

If it's all about stroking Hillary's ego, losing a generation of Democrats, and not minding a Republican in the White House, then Clinton will be nominated.

[liberal N proud]

38. This is the Grand Delusion

[Surya Gayatri]

39. "I was destined to see ROME!"

[liberal N proud]

44. If I had the time, I might have edited that

[dreamnightwind]

42. I think the Clinton campaign is the grand illusion, but maybe that's just me

edit to add I do agree it is now very long odds for Sanders and the statement by the Sanders campaign is probably more out of a sense of obligation to their cause and to their supporters than it is about them being likely to win the nomination.

There are a lot of scandals swirling around the Clintons, if one of them blows up that could definitely change things, and is reason enough for Bernie to stay in the race and keep reaching his voters.

Another reason is to allow people in other states to vote for him. I am in California and have been looking forward to voting for him more than I've ever looked forward to a vote. I would like to have that vote, thank you.

Finally, the Sanders campaign is not only about Bernie being POTUS, the larger purpose is to bring about the changes we need to survive as a species and to have decent living conditions rather than a dystopian corporate future that destroys our environment and our souls.

[liberal N proud]

43. Delegate count says it must just be you.

[dreamnightwind]

51. No it doesn't.

[liberal N proud]

58. OK

[dreamnightwind]

59. Sorry, winning a vote does not define objective reality

I have always felt that the Clinton campaign is nothing but astroturf. People buy all kinds of things that don't help them, en masse. The Democratic Party would do well to start listening to people on the ground. They appear to have rammed this one through, though the party may not survive the consequences of doing so.

[Peace Patriot]

53. No, it's me, too, and...

...lots and lots of other people.

The delegate count is still surmountable.

I'm a California, too, and, goddammit, I, too, want to cast an enthusiastic vote for the best presidential candidate in my lifetime (I'm 70)...

BERNIE SANDERS!

And for once...FOR ONCE!...I want to have a say in the presidential primary!

[YoungDemCA]

77. "Welcome to the Grand Delusion!"

That's how the song goes, right?

[liberal N proud]

79. Just change the word

[Gothmog]

52. Weaver made a fool of himself last night

There is no path to the nomination for Sanders

[quickesst]

56. Because Google screwed things up...

... I can't post videos here anymore, but it's like Groundhog Day and the Holy Grail mixed together with Bernie supporters continuously playing the role of the Black Knight. Check it out. You'll see what I mean.

[2naSalit]

72. You mean this?

[Gamecock Lefty]

63. Bernie's toast!

And that toast is berned!!!

[stopbush]

64. Bernie is demonstrating that were he ever to be elected president

he would stick with a losing strategy, trusting his fantasies over reality, no matter how obvious it was that the strategy was a failure.

[riversedge]

76. Weaver needs psy help NOW

[hrc guy]

78. And I'll be Sleeping with Nicole Kidman Tonight

[wyldwolf]

84. kick for fun