They're calling it for Clinton a day early????

Well this is weird, apparently people are saying Clinton officially has the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Don't get me wrong she was going to get it tomorrow because the math made it virtually impossible not to, but still it's rather uncouth to call it before the votes are even in. Regardless people are now saying she has just enough delegates to win the nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-race.html?_r=0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Hopefully we can now move on

The race to be first in the news. Gotta love it.

But this was in the bag weeks ago.

I'm already seeing headlines 'first woman to win US presidential nomination'

Yeah, similar to trump and how people called it for him early

If somebody had told me just a few months ago that I'd one day be voting Republican, I'd have scoffed at the idea. :-(

*shrugs* no one's making you.....

If she has the delegates, she has the delegates.

Apparently Sanders is still deluded enough to think he's going to flip the superdelegates he once thought were so undemocratic. Or that's what he's telling his supporters to get more money out of them. He's an idiot.

@Serraph105: They have been calling it early from the beginning since superdelegates do not actually vote until their respective party conventions.

No delegates vote until their respective party conventions.

The superdelegates are not switching to Sanders. It's over.

Bernie math. Fewer popular votes+fewer delegates+even fewer super delegates+fewer states won=contested convention. I knew the guy was suffering from dementia months ago.

Yet Obama was able to win despite Hillary's superdelegate advantage in 2008. Bernie wasn't able to win because he doesn't have broad appeal and minorities were not buying what he was selling.

Sucks for Bernie, but at least the Democrats can focus on winning the generals now.

And Bernie can focus on his job as well.

Like I said, he's an idiot.

Also, in the same way that Trump confirmed some of the darkest aspects of the GOP, the Sanders movement made the progressive movement look straight up idiotic. You cannot claim to be more nuanced than conservatives and then engage in your own brand of simplistic demagoguery. Would it kill Bernie to talk about income inequality (which is indeed a real problem) without demonizing billionaires as a group? Sad that some progressives think a guy who is clueless outside of his childish stump speech is some kind of intellectual giant.

Thank God the Democrats rejected him. A candidate who proposes raising taxes on everybody is the last fucking thing we need. It's a good thing to propose that the rich pay a little more; it's a recipe for disaster to ask everyone to pay more for things that you have no clue how to implement in the first place.

Tell me.

In that case, why is there public voting?

I actually agree with you on something. Everything you said about Bernie is true that you stated. Man, it's going to start raining frogs.

What does this question have to do with anything?

No delegates vote until their respective party conventions=true statement.

The superdelegates are not switching to Sanders (in fact, doing so would overturn the will of the people)=true statement.

If you can dispute either of these statements, go ahead, but let's not ask irrelevant questions.

@GreySeal9: How is it irrelevant when U.S. Primary reports list the delegates allotted to candidates by popular vote before the conventions? There are also reports about superdelegates. The facts suggest that this and my previous question are quite important to U.S. elections.

Delegates might be allotted to candidates by popular vote, but the delegates do not officially vote until the convention. This is not rocket science.

While it is not rocket science, the purpose of the popular vote has not been explained in this thread. For those seeking to understand why you are so quick to say, "It's over," when voting is occurring today in multiple states and Senator Sanders continues to campaign, I wonder if you would be willing to explain that or you simply do not have the patience.

Two reasons I'm saying it's over:

1) Clinton has enough delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates are not going to switch sides and she has enough of them to win outright. You can say that the superdelegates don't vote until convention, but that's true of the pledged delegates as well.

2) Bernie would have to all the remaining contests by lopsided margins to catch up in pledged delegates. That is not going to happen. What's even less likely to happen is the superdelegates overturning the will of the people.

3) Even under the best circumstances Bernie can hope for tomorrow, Clinton will lead in pledged delegates, popular votes, and states won.

If you still can't understand why I say it's over, I cannot help you.

trying to dissuade sanders voters in california to avoid the embarrassment of the presumptive nominee losing in the biggest state in the country

@GreySeal9: That is saying how the voting takes place, but not why. If you do not know, I can look elsewhere.

He's going to quit in the next week or two probably. He's still in I can win mode. We will see what he does in the next week or two, but I expect him to stop focusing on trying to attract superdelegates after today especially if he loses California. The dems will add a few million votes to their vote total today anyway.

Lets hope he goes third party! If he does we just might see campaign and primary reform sometime in our life times.

The scum media waited until just before the last primaries to call it to try and lower voter turnout.

I mean, Sanders most likely can't get the 70-80% in California and new Jersey he needs, but still, it's not over yet. It is over if you count the king's delegates, but they would've switched over if Clinton didn't win in pledged delegates. Or else there would be outrage and at the very least that would seal the deal for Trump.

It's not over yet. With enough violence and intimidation, we may still be able to flip enough of the superdelegates to hand Bernie the nomination.

You and me both buddy. I didn't see this coming honestly.

The superdelegates already called it back in January. This is just a formality.

Sanders had every opportunity to convince the superdelegates by proving that he could appeal to a broad coalition of voters and that he could be a team player. He failed.

He never had a chance with them. Hillary had them wrapped up before the start.

If was a) winning the pledged delegates and the popular vote and b) had bothered to establish relationships with superdelegates, the superdelegates would likely reconsider. They are not going to overturn the will of the people unless absolutely necessary. Doing so would be a recipe for electoral disaster.

And whose fault is that? He knew what he was getting into he's been in politics for years and he isn't even a Democrat to begin with.

Her speech tonight was excellent and presidential, looking forward to President Clinton.

This is no time to capitulate. We can still win this!

And yet American gov officials like Hillary are demanding that Assad or other middle eastern country leaders to step down let democracy in? funny.. The American elections arent very democratic

The beauty of all this is......Hillary has clinched the majority of pledged delegates, so even by Sanders standards, she has won. No more whining about super delegates. The majority of Sanders supporters will support Clinton, similarly to me supporting Obama in 2008 after Hillary bowed out. I have always believed Hillary would make a better president than Obama.

Great, now I get to vote for either the arrogant, narcissistic, pathological liar, or the arrogant, criminal, pathological liar. Democracy is awesome, well I should say the illusion of democracy is awesome.

Well, one of those liars has years of experience, the other does not.

What are you on about?

Obama won because he had the super delegates not Clinton.

So not sure where you get your information but you may want to check up on it.

As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.

In 2008, Clinton started with a considerable superdelegate lead. It wasn't until Obama starting winning that he peeled off superdelegates.

Why in the world would Obama start with more supers? He was the new face while Clinton represented the party establishment.

From the article:

Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton on making history and becoming the first female canidate for a major US political party. I look forward to seeing her make history again and becoming the first female US president.

Again you prove to know absolute nothing and also try to read what i wrote.

But As everyone knows who follow american politics , Obama had a comfortable lead already in Mid Feb and by march he was ahead and never looked back and funny enough Clinton was the one talking about how the system is bad with super delegates.

Also who began with what is as meaningless as 90% of the posts you make.

We will see

It looks like a crazy old geezer called Sanders may hijack some democratic voters and cause Trump to stand a better chance of winning.

lol. Somebody's angry. Looks like I hit a nerve.

My point was simple: Obama managed to win despite the fact that Clinton started with the superdelegates in her pocket. Clinton had an early delegate lead in 2008 just as she had this year. Obama managed to overcome it and persuaded superdelegates to his side by winning more pledged delegates than Clinton whereas Sanders did not. What I was arguing is that an early lead in superdelegates can be overcome (as Obama did), so it is not an excuse for Sanders' shortcomings.

The point I was making was clear to everyone but you. You misunderstood the point being made and are now trying to save face. My advice to you is to man up and admit it. There is no shame in admitting that you didn't understand something. That is how people learn. Not every exchange on the internet has to be "won."

Or you can keep nursing your ego. It really makes no difference to me.