Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do we even know. The DNC is refusing to release the raw votes in a number of states. And now it appears the entire California election is in doubt.
Furthermore, it was rigged for Hillary when Super Delegates declared before the first vote was cast. That was horribly unfair to the other candidates.
Only 6 states did not report raw votes (Iowa Nevada Washington Maine North Dakota and Wyoming) Bernie won 4 of them anyways.
Superdelegates were not rigged. Hillary got historic and unprecedented 18 million votes in 2008 and didn't get nominated, Bernie sanders had ZERO votes in presidential primaries before 2016. It makes sense the SD endorse Hillary at first. Bernie sanders has reiterated that if Hillary no longer does well, SD can change their minds and support Bernie Sanders. The most important thing is they don't vote until the convention, so how is it rigged at all if they only officially vote for Hillary at the convention
The CA vote count is ongoing. Results won't be official and delegates won't be officially awarded until July 8. All counts until then are considered preliminary.
In the meanwhile, there are enough votes counted to know that HRC is the CA winner in both popular votes and number of pledged delegates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywalk
No individual county was ever called for Hillary. Only the overall result in the state was projected for Hillary as the winner. See the distinction?
This is exactly right. The county results are posted on the CA SOS sight and are updated as the votes continue to be counted.
According to your logic, technically Clinton is not yet the nominee.
But, maybe if CNN had written the article it wouldn't be propaganda? CNN who is owned by Time Warner one of Clinton's biggest campaign donors?
Or what about MSNBC who is owned my Comcast who held a fund raising dinner for Clinton's campaign last year?
Haha what the hell are you talking about? Of course Hillary is not yet the nominee, she is projected by all media sources to be the Presumptive Nominee.
Honestly if you ever paid attention to the political process, it was run this way for many many years. If you have to direct it personally to Hillary, then it doesn't even further your point because she got unprecedented and historic 18 million votes in 2008 and still didn't get nominated.
Haha what the hell are you talking about? Of course Hillary is not yet the nominee, she is projected by all media sources to be the Presumptive Nominee.
Honestly if you ever paid attention to the political process, it was run this way for many many years. If you have to direct it personally to Hillary, then it doesn't even further your point because she got unprecedented and historic 18 million votes in 2008 and still didn't get nominated.
What is hard to understand? You questioned the integrity of the source of the article, I simply pointed out a conflict of interest in some of the most sought out sources of "news" and information. That after they donate thousands of dollars to a candidate, why wouldn't they do everything in their power to make sure they win?
Quote:
As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn't get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage. An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton's and Sanders' mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders' roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.
The fact that this is how it's "always been" does not comfort me one bit. That only leads me to believe that we've grown complacent with our electoral process and it's heresy to question it.
The very fact that we are hitched to a 2 party system, and that both parties can dictate the terms, and change the rules of how they elect their nominees (there are still whispers of nominating Paul Ryan), and are not beholden to the citizens of the United States at large is questionable for a "democracy". Like you said about Clinton in 08, we don't choose the nominees, the party insiders do.
Even Trump could be cast aside by the republicans if they see fit.
Haha what the hell are you talking about? Of course Hillary is not yet the nominee, she is projected by all media sources to be the Presumptive Nominee.
Honestly if you ever paid attention to the political process, it was run this way for many many years. If you have to direct it personally to Hillary, then it doesn't even further your point because she got unprecedented and historic 18 million votes in 2008 and still didn't get nominated.
Why do you always bring up 2008 votes as if it is relevant? Personally I don't think the DNC should be recycling and actively promoting candidates (with the help of the corporate media) that were already rejected.
Could you imagine the flack the Republicans would have gotten if they were pushing for Romney or McCain in 2016?
According to your logic, technically Clinton is not yet the nominee.
Who said she is? She's the *presumptive* nominee. She won't be the actual nominee until the convention vote.
Ditto Trump.
That's not just my logic, that's reality.
Why do you always bring up 2008 votes as if it is relevant? Personally I don't think the DNC should be recycling and actively promoting candidates (with the help of the corporate media) that were already rejected.
Could you imagine the flack the Republicans would have gotten if they were pushing for Romney or McCain in 2016?
None really as it would be Romney's or McCain's choice to run or not run.
Why do you always bring up 2008 votes as if it is relevant? Personally I don't think the DNC should be recycling and actively promoting candidates (with the help of the corporate media) that were already rejected.
Could you imagine the flack the Republicans would have gotten if they were pushing for Romney or McCain in 2016?
Romney and McCain got the nomination in their 2nd run and already failed at the general election
Hillary didn't get the nomination. She handily won against 2 term president Obama in 6 of the 7 biggest states (California New York Texas Florida Pennsylvania Ohio ). She also won other big states like New Jersey Massachusetts Arizona Indiana Tennessee
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
