538: Hillary Clinton Is On Track To Win The Nomination

[RandySF]

Clinton won the Democratic primary in New York on Tuesday by what looks to be about a 15 percentage point margin. While that generally matches pre-election polls, it is a devastating result for the Sanders campaign. The outcome almost certainly ensures that Clinton will beat Sanders in the elected delegate count after the final Democratic votes are counted in June.

Clinton entered the night with an elected delegate lead of about 205. That means, of course, that Sanders needs to catch-up. In order to do so, he has to win states with big delegate totals because of the proportional allocation rules that Democrats use in their primaries. Late last month, Nate calculated that Sanders needed to win New York by about 9 pledged delegates to remain on track for the nomination. Instead, Sanders lost the state by about 30 delegates or more. That’s a swing of about 40 delegates or more. To give you an idea of how big of a swing that is, that’s about double the total available delegates in Montana, which is expected to be a strong state for Sanders.

Sanders’s loss in New York means that he needs to do even better in upcoming contests than we originally thought to have any shot at winning more elected delegates than Clinton. More specifically, he’ll need somewhere in the area of 59 percent of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit to Clinton — he needed 57 percent before the night began. That means that he needs to win a state like Pennsylvania by closer to 10 percentage points instead of the 7 percentage points Nate originally calculated. (Sanders is behind in the Pennsylvania polling average by 14 percentage points.)

Indeed, the math just doesn’t look like it’s on Sanders’s side in upcoming contests. Besides Pennsylvania, he’s behind in all three of the other states with the biggest delegate prizes left on the calendar. He’s down 23 percentage points in Maryland — we originally estimated a 9-point Sanders loss would signal he was “on track.” Sanders trails Clinton by 9 points in New Jersey, which he originally needed to win by 6 points. Most importantly, he’s trailing by 13 percentage points in California, where he needed to win by 15 points.


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

[LexVegas]

1. Sanders is done. nt

[GoldenThunder]

25. Nate Silver is severly underestimating...

...the degree to which we will fight for this. You're gonna have an easier time putting down a pack of rabid wolves with a dull butter knife than putting down our campaign.

[Downwinder]

2. Track is a little muddy.

[AgingAmerican]

3. Sad because she can't win in the general election

[Demsrule86]

19. Yes she can

And she must!

[pressbox69]

4. and so it goes..

and down goes the G.O.P.

[k8conant]

5. Indictment could derail her.

[geek tragedy]

6. This isn't free republic. nt

[k8conant]

7. No, it's not.

not even FreeDemocrat.

[geek tragedy]

8. This is a Democratic website. The indictment talk is rightwing horseshit

Pick a side

[w4rma]

9. No, it's not "right-wing" horseshit. It's an ongoing investigation with major resources.

IF FBI Director James Comey feels no deadline pressure to wrap up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server, he should.

“The urgency is to do it well and promptly. And ‘well’ comes first,” Comey told local law enforcement agents in Buffalo on Monday, according to the Niagara Gazette.

“Well” is important. But so is “promptly,” and the FBI’s definition of that is unclear.

The probe, underway for a year now, addresses a fundamental question: Did Clinton intentionally or recklessly forward classified information in a way that put the country at risk?

Getting the answer sooner rather than later seems only fair.
…
But an investigation that drags on past the convention, into the fall, is more than a partisan concern. It’s unfair to the country as a whole.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has come to epitomize her biggest challenge as a presidential candidate — the voters’ lack of trust in her. No matter what the FBI concludes, that political problem, years in the making, won’t go away. If no one committed any crime with the e-mail set-up, Clinton’s judgment can still be questioned. She now acknowledges it was a mistake.
…
From a purely political perspective, it would have been better if it happened months ago. If it ended Clinton’s presidential ambitions, so be it. She could have at least moved on with her life, and the party could have moved onto another candidate.

Instead, according to media reports, the FBI is just getting to the point of questioning Clinton and assorted aides. Asked this week on “The View” if she will be able to put the matter behind her, Clinton said, “I’m sure I will, because there’s nothing to it.”

An endless investigation leaves a perpetual cloud over her head. That’s not a crime, but it should be.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/06/why-fbi-slow-clinton-mail-probe/lJmHwLuAfbxSXrrvR0XqwJ/story.html

[k8conant]

10. Thank you w4rma

for not being one of the ostriches.

[nolawarlock]

14. Yet even Bernie himself was sick of this months ago. N/t

[pnwmom]

17. The guy who literally wrote the book about classification says she won't be prosecuted.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438

University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert debunked common right-wing talking points about the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for government emails to explain why Clinton "won't be indicted and shouldn't be."

Right-wing media have hyped the idea of an imminent criminal indictment over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite experts consistently debunking claims that Clinton violated the law. In a March piece for American Prospect, Lempert wrote that Clinton's email use did not constitute criminal conduct, noting that relevant law says one must "knowingly and willfully" disclose "certain categories of classified information" to violate the statutes regarding the disclosure of classified information. Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original):

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP

[w4rma]

30. So you are saying that Clinton's shit is going to roll downhill onto everyone who worked with her.

"The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be."

I don't see how Clinton suckering her associates into committing crimes is an improvement.

[pnwmom]

31. No, there's no evidence that happened either. Just wishful thinking of the haters. n/t

[w4rma]

32. That quote came from *your* expert who *you* cited and previously thought highly of. (nt)

[pnwmom]

33. That quote was just acknowledging some speculation -- not confirming it. n/t

[Demsrule86]

20. Thank you

Those sort of posts should be stopped now. It will be used against the Dem nominee Hillary Clinton.

[workinclasszero]

11. Put a fork in Bernie

I'll be the democratic nominee before he is!

[Cha]

12. #HillYeah!

"In a speech to supporters, in which she declared that "victory is in sight" in the race for the nomination, Clinton reached out to those who had backed Sanders, saying, "I believe there is much more that unites us than divides us."


Hillary Clinton celebrates with her husband after winning the New York primary.
(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-new-york-democratic-primary-20160419-story.html

Iaaahttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=108832

Hillary

[NurseJackie]

23. :-D <3

Xo xo xo

[Cha]

24. "New York is a place for dreaming big. But New Yorkers also like to get things done."

Hillary Clinton
✔ ‎‎@HillaryClinton
"New York is a place for dreaming big. But New Yorkers also like to get things done." —Hillary
5:36 PM - 19 Apr 2016
1,406 1,406 Retweets 3,455 3,455 likes

https://theobamadiary.com/2016/04/19/tweets-of-the-day-51/#comments





Jackie~

[Human101948]

26. Just think of how many Post Offices will get really cool names!

Now that's getting things done!

[frustrated_lefty]

13. Clinton right on track to lose

to the republican nominee. Good going guys.

[nolawarlock]

15. Never mind Bernie ...

I think we could run Barnie (as in big purple dinosaur) against whichever of those two idiots the a Republicans put up and he'd win.

[frustrated_lefty]

16. Right.

See how that plays out for ya.

[nolawarlock]

18. If the bluster I'm reading is true ...

Then we never had his supporters anyway. We keep hearing how they didn't like Hillary before they knew who Bernie was. Well, since we like her, we're gonna give it a roll of the dice and see. I for one am convinced she will be president.

[Demsrule86]

22. Madam President!

That sounds great.

[Human101948]

28. I have been defending Hillary for years against Republican attacks...

Whitewater, Vince Fosterm Ben Ghazi, Private Server, etc., but when Bernie came on strong talking about income inequality, Wall Street crooks, Too Big to Fail Banks, healthcare for all, publicly funded college education, and so forth it reminded me of why I never really was excited by her husband.

Her message of caution and incrementalism is not inspiring. Her embrace of corporate cash and warhawk stance is discouraging. Sure, it will be great to have a woman in the White House. What she does on day two will be more significant.

[Demsrule86]

21. She will win

And thank God for that.

[Thinkingabout]

27. She is the most qualified, scary when you hear Rush talking.

[fasttense]

29. Ever since Bernie began to run for president

The corporate media and Hillary have been saying he can't win and he should get out of the race.

It's a worn out talking point that was designed to support Hillary. It is not of any value except to propagandize for Hillary. It really has no resemblance to fact. No matter who repeats it, it is merely a tool to help Hillary and the oligarchs who support her.

Even when a formly trusted source repeats it, it does Not suddenly become a fact. It is merely repeating propaganda.