Hillary Clinton Has The Delegates To Clinch Democratic Nomination


#1

Hillary Clinton has officially reached the number of delegates necessary to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, the Associated Press reported Monday evening.
According to the Associated Press’ count of pledged delegates and its survey of unpledged delegates, also known as superdelegates, the former secretary of state has reached the 2,383 delegate threshold necessary to lock the nomination.
Upon being officially nominated at the Democratic National Convention in July, Clinton will be the first woman to be a major party’s presidential nominee.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-democratic-nomination_us_57561451e4b0ca5c7b4fe165


#2

Thank you, GT. I came here to post this article, even as I respect that it may not be well-received. I have followed Clinton for many years and I will be so proud to cast one vote for her in November.


#3

How could anyone vote for someone (Hillary Clinton) who was pro-choice???


#4

If Sanders should win California and some other states tomorrow … could the DIFFERENCE in delegate margin be JUST that of the so-called super-delegates (most of whom were committed to her even before any voting began)?

If Sanders ever led in the “other column” … NON-super delegates … i.e. those won in the primaries via the actual vote of the people …

… that Democratic Convention’s Coronation of Hillary may look rather

Hollow-ry.

And the non-super voters may feel a different kind of

BURN.


#5

Hillary is leveraging 570 super delegates to claim victory. If Bernie wins in CA or Hillary is indicted, they could readily take it away from her.


#6

She won’ win fair and square, that’s for sure.


#7

Spokesman for Bernie Sanders:

“It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer,” spokesman Michael Briggs said Monday night.

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282435-sanders-camp-clinton-has-not-secured-nomination-yet


#8

Definitely.
I didn’t save it but I saw an article that diced and sliced all the numbers and figured that Clinton wins with or without superdelegates, whether states were winner take all or proportional, or under Republican rules.

Still, I’m enjoying Sanders yipping at Clinton’s heels. Even if he does finally concede I bet his supporters will protest at the Democratic convention.


#9

I’m confused as to how a woman who changes her views with the way the wind blows managed to win the nomination, even when you ignore the super delegates. But then again, I’m not sure how Trump won the Republican nomination either.


#10

Sanders has run a good campaign against the Clinton machine that is for sure and he plans on taking the fight to the Democrat convention.

I hope he does good tomorrow in California.

I just don’t understand why anyone would want Hillary and Bill back in the White House. A recipe for disaster.


#11

Clinton has officially reached the number of delegates only according to the AP. The AP called up unpledged delegates and asked who they were supporting with the intention of getting enough to say they support Clinton so that they could run this story before the voting today. I think this was to A) try to suppress the Bernie vote by making Bernie supporters think there is no point since Clinton already won, to avoid an embarrassing loss for Clinton in CA and B) if that failed, have this story out long enough before a Bernie CA win to try to drown out coverage of an embarrassing loss for Clinton in CA.


#12

Because raising taxes on the rich is much more important than 50 million dead children


#13

I don’t agree with releasing this information before the primaries today. They did the same in naming Trump the presumptive nominee but that race was more obvious. I guess all bets are off with this election.


#14

It’s just the idea of raising taxes on the rich. You know it’s always the middle class that get’s squeezed. I don’t know why people continue with this “pay their fair share” line. Unless, they actually consider middle class to be “rich”. Their definitions of rich are always nebulous.


#15

And she certainly won’t raise taxes on the rich either. Who do you think’s financing her campaign?


#16

The “tax the rich” sham is undoubtedly part of it, but one has to remember that something like 28% of the women in the U.S. have had abortions according to Guttmacher. And, for every one there are people who were complicit in it. Undoubtedly there are those who have regrets, but there will be many who feel invested in it.

So perhaps, Estesbob, it may really be the other way around. If so, the pro-abortion Sanders people will back Hillary Clinton without fail. Where else can they go?


#17

I think everybody’s definition of the rich is nebulous. The right seems to define the poor as rich and those who make $200k per year as middle class. Of course, middle class has no real definition either.


#18

Exactly! I remember when BC ran his first term.Same line only raising taxes on the rich.Turns out,rich was making 35K a year😳


#19

The middle class always gets it, no matter who’s in office. We are the only ones who actually PAY taxes.


#20

What’s interesting about this announcement is that the media chose to call the nomination for her based on the number of “committed super delegates,” who can still change their mind based on personal convictions or a mandate from the party bosses (in the event Hillary fails the “FBI Primary.”)

The media is all-in for Hillary, obviously - one only has to look at the amazingly soft-ball questions lobbed at her during her first “press conference” in months:

“You’re on the cusp of being the first female nominee of a major party. What does that mean to you and how are you reflecting on that?”

“Is it setting in that you might be making serious history tomorrow?”

“Last night when you took stage in Sacramento, there was a woman standing next to me who was absolutely sobbing. And she said, you know, ‘it’s time, it’s past time.’ And you see the women, you see people here. People just come up to you and, {gasp} they get tears in their eyes. Do you feel… do you feel the weight of what this means to people?”

Ed Murrow is probably spinning in his grave.

What’s more interesting is that, in their rush to judgment to coronate Hillary, the media may have kneecapped both her and the Democratic downticket candidates on the ballot in California today.

If Democrat, pro-Hillary voters think the game is over, they are less likely to go through the hassles of voting today…which will harm many of the down-ticket candidates who would benefit from a large pro-Hillary turn-out, as her supporters tend to vote a straight party line vote all down the ballot. It may also benefit Bernie supporters, who are uniformly angry at the media for calling the election so early, and who will be more likely to vote, perhaps. Losing the California primary to Sanders is mighty bad optics for the presumptive nominee, going into the convention. Bernie supporters also have shown a historic tendency (about 25%, if memory serves) to check the box only for their candidate, and not down-ticket Democrat candidates.

We shall see.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.