Home | About | Donate

Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination


Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination

Seth Abramson

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has revealed that the major television networks plan to call the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton during the day on June 7th — hours prior to the close of polls in California — on the grounds that Clinton has “clinched” the nomination as soon as she crosses the 2,383-delegate threshold via both pledged delegates (who are already committed to


"The networks" HAVE BEEN "making the news rather than reporting it" throughout the election cycle.

I recently asked a Trump supporter how she could support him in view of the violence Trump has incited at some of his events. Her response: "Bernie Sanders is doing that, not Trump". The mainstream media where she gets her news ignored or gave minimal coverage to Trump's violent events while blowing the Nevada Convention story that was BS from the beginning way out of proportion.

Sanders needs to start warning his audience that the results will not be final until all the absentee ballots are counted on June 8.


Seth Abramson is Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire

Well man, I can't understand that, because you should be helming some M$M news service and sucking up the Big Bucks!

Great satire.


I don't think the Democrats have a word for what happens when a candidate gets enough pledged delegates and superdelegates to win. You don't actually win until the roll call at the convention. And, at least on the Republican side the rules committee at the Convention has the power to change the rules to release the pledged delegates from their pledges. So technically Trump cannot win until the convention. This may also be true for Democrats if the rules committee has the power to release the pledged delegates from their pledges. All we know is Clinton will not technically be the nominee until the roll call and some state puts here over the top. Until then her clinching needs to be qualified with unless something unexpected happens. But it certainly appears that sometime during the evening of June 7 she will become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party


Most times, good satires contain more truths than what passes for “news.” Excellent piece by the son of Abraham.


No, it was Van Hollen's seat in MD, and she lost by 10 points in the primary in a crowded field. But, yeah, Matthews should have recused himself from campaign coverage because of it. MSNBC never even mentioned that Kathleen was running for Congress as a Clintonite. Think that might have been something viewers are entitled to know?


Well I never thought that I would see the day when the Democrats were better at stealing elections than the Republicans.
But I guess I will have to eat my words when somehow or someway Donald Trump is replaced by Jeb Bush and a Bush steals the Presidency ... again.


The super delegates won't support Sanders. Why is anyone pretending that they might?

I really don't get it. Is it just the tenacity of hope?


Oh, you never know. The super-delegates could suddenly decide they want to beat Trump. Clinton won't have the enough pledged delegates to cinch the nomination without them.


The correct term is presumptive nominee until the convention. This would seem entirely appropriate given past tradition, the narrowness of her lead, the unpredictability of the super delegates (just look at 2008), a possibility that she might be indicted and her decline in voter favorability. Anything more than this would be imprudent.

But lets face it, the reason the MSM wants to anoint HRC is that they are trying to shore up a weak candidate who is getting ever weaker by the day. It is sad to watch seemingly intelligent people gloss over her obvious problems stemming from her corporatist viewpoint and uninterest in the average American. HRC is a walking, talking disaster and Trump is going to roll right over her in the general election.


As evidence mounts that Clinton will lose to Trump (and Sanders will win) there's a chance the super-delegates will decide keeping the White House and bring independents and millennials into the party is more important than losing to maintain the status-quo.

Sanders 2016



Unfortunately true. That is because they are thinking with their "bribes" rather than their heads.

It will be the end of the Democratic Party when Hillary is crowned as the nominee. Disillusioned voters, including many excited new voters who could have been the future of the Party, will leave in disgust. Many will just not bother to vote in November or will vote for someone else, leaving Trump to win. Most will be unwilling to choose which evil is the lesser of the two very evil choices. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most disliked candidates in history. The lack of Democratic turnout will also guarantee the Republican control of Congress.

If the super delegates were really watching, they would see the excitement that Bernie has brought to this election and the Democratic Party. With Bernie as the candidate, he would easily beat Trump and a Progressive Congress would ride in on his coattails. But as you say, the super delegates won't vote for him; they are too entrenched in the Party Politics to see the results of their selfish behavior.


What chance? The super delegates exist to keep people like Sanders out. That's why they have them. That's why they are overwhelmingly in support of Clinton, and that's why none of them are stepping up to challenge the media narrative of Clinton's ascension.

Bernie Sanders has an icecube's chance in hell. The system is rigged against him. The system has always been rigged against him. It's not blasphemy to acknowledge the obvious.


I don't disagree except to point out that it may become clear to the super-delegates that their choice is between winning/renewing the party with millennials and independents, or maintaining the status quo/alienating the whole upcoming generation of voters and losing the White House and many downticket races.

There's always the chance they'll see reason.


Someone please explain to me how in the world if Bernie needs to capture 70% of the vote to win outright on pledged delegates, and Clinton needs 78.3% to win outright, that she is winning, nay won?!
Something smells Horribly Rotten in the Denmark-cratic party!
WTF - Over?!!!


You may be right, but many super-delegates are politicians who would like to have enough Democrats in coming years to be able to win elections. They may see it in their best interest to have the party invigorated with a new generation of voters, instead of dying off along with the boomers.

Even if you're correct, the oligarchs may want a pressure release valve to stop things from exploding. They don't want a repeat of the French Revolution.

All that independent, youthful energy is going to find somewhere to go.

Safer for them to channel it back into the system and accept changes that will let them keep their heads.


Love your articles. Get this on Huff Post, they don't seem to understand the election is not over. New York Times and WaPo both are trying to convince everyone that it's over. One article talks about Bernie and his "scorched earth campaign". Oh, and that his staying in the race is undemocratic. OMG
I personally think this email investigation is worse than she's letting on and that her poll numbers are going to drop in delegates and lead against Trump.
These Hillary supporters can't see past her celebrity enough to see she will lose to Trump all by herself. They may be glad Bernie stayed in the race after that.
After all their schemes and dirty tricks it may well be Bernie that saves their sorry asses.


What about a petition or mass emails to MSNBC in protest?


How about that Andrea Mitchell is Mrs. Alan Greenspan!!?? Could somebody please ask her how she "feels" that her hubby dear admitted (practically wept) before congress that everything he thought about the world was wrong?? Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand devotee, chair of the Federal Reserve 1987 to 2006.