Home | About | Donate

Clinton to Californians: Your Votes Will Not Affect the Democratic Primary Whatsoever


Clinton to Californians: Your Votes Will Not Affect the Democratic Primary Whatsoever

Seth Abramson

On Thursday, Chris Cuomo had the temerity to use conditional language in speaking of Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for President.

It didn’t go over well.

The relevant portion of the transcript is below:

{at 10:40 in the video}


I think the point is, if an election between Clinton and Trump is a real thing that can happen, then the US should probably shut up about how it's the model of human rights to the rest of the world.


Come on California, let's prove her wrong as usual.


What a campaign platform: "You don't count." Effing &*%#$.


Sanders is on pace to win as many as 18 of the final 24 state
primaries and caucuses; while Clinton often says that she won “nine of
the last 12 contests” in 2008, in fact Clinton and Obama evenly split
the final ten state primaries and caucuses of the 2008 primary season.
In the final 23 state primaries and caucuses in 2008, Clinton won 8 and lost 15.

Does she even listen to herself as she speaks? Does she not look at the facts before going on air? The only way she can get away with this blatant a lie is because the 'media' doesn't do its due diligence in reporting.


"On Thursday, Chris Cuomo had the temerity to use conditional language" What do you mean? This is simple future without any conditions. She posits a very non-conditional situation. Must be a goofy typo here. Perhaps we need to come up with a new tense, the future arrogant.


Nothing like a good laugh to start my day. Thanks 4thefuture!:laughing:


At about 10:00, she actually sez Trump not qualified for president, based on the 'difficult' decision to 'get bin laden'. Here's how that 'difficult' decision went down, imo: MIC: "We got bin laden, right now, you want to get him, right sir?" Obomber "Will you kill him?" MIC: "Yes, sir, we'll kill him. We're all set, this is what you want, right sir? You agree, isn't that right sir?" Obomber: "Ok..."

btw, I don't go to TPM anymore, if you want to see what a clintonista thread looks like, here's a good one..


Clinton>>Future Arrogant
Trump>> Past, Present, & Future Aggrandizement


If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. That's what she's hoping for but of course it's not working this time. She is still not the nominee and will not be going into the convention so this entitlement, arrogant attitude of hers is not only wrong but it angers the voters. If she is the one she can't possibly unite the party and herd Bernie's supporters to her side with disgusting comments like this one. Then, after insulting something like 9 million voters, she crows about how she knows they will support her in the end. WOW
Go Bernie


So which ill-met historic, must-have moment is it for the super-delegates?

The first woman or the first fascist?

(Sorry, maybe sneering Dick Cheney was the first fascist...)


If she is the one she can't possibly unite the party and herd Bernie's supporters to her side with disgusting comments like this one.

I see this as just the expression of the overall Democratic Party mindset. To party loyalists, all that matters is winning, and she is trying to project that "I am a winner" attitude to show that voting for anyone else is voting for a loser. Democrat minions don't care what kind of government they get as long as a Democrat is leading it. That shows they are winners, and "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." —Red Saunders. Otherwise, why would so many support someone whose stated policies they were condemning a few years ago, because they were coming from Republicans?


Wonderful question! I'll answer that one! :grinning: First, she needs a rational brain to listen and second, she needs a conscience to disseminate the facts truthfully. I believe she has neither.


I know everyone's used to this stuff, but this is why I avoid mainstream news: in an alternate universe where the mainstream press performed actual journalism instead of a sad excuse for it, Mr. Cuomo's reference in the interview to "what happened in Nevada" would have meant the blatant miscarriage of democracy that took place there and was filmed by many of those present and viewable by anyone with internet access. Anyone who watched enough of the videos (some are more informative than others) and read enough of the commentary by those present would understand this. (And I'm not only referring to who won the much discussed yea or nay vote.) Those present who were appalled at the proceedings included lifelong Nevada Democratic caucus goers and Clinton supporters as well as Sanders', including Clinton supporters who walked out in disgust. Instead, because so many viewers rely on mainstream media for their information instead of the widely available and direct source of live footage, they watch this Cuomo interview segment and automatically assume that by "what happened in Nevada," he means the way Sanders supporters behaved or what Sanders said about it.


In addition to a GOP occupied White House giving Congressional Democrats cover to continue and expand the pro corporate, pro war agenda, as you have pointed out NoUsername, the Democrats get MORE donations from the rank and file as they send out serial scary solicitations to build a war chest to "take back the White House". Losing some of the elections actually pays off for the Party because the corporate cash flow is sustained as long as they nominate a corporate money magnet like Obama or Clinton.


Just as Clinton will continue daily intonations convincing voters that the primary is over, Sanders, Professor Abramson and other numbers folks need to continue to remind voters that every poll since January projects a tragic outcome in a Clinton verses Trump election.


Keep fighting, Bernie. Unfortunately, it will take a lot of convincing to make the Dem establishment move off its 'Clinton or bust' stance. I fear they will continue their "march to folly."

Clinton's smug statements are not helping her chances.


If Bernie wins, the Democratic platform and culture will actually shift to the left. THAT is the last thing they want.

The Clintons have spent decades reshaping the Democratic Party, moving it to the right, and bringing in Republicans and former Republicans.

Look at the "left wing media" like Huffington Post (Arianna, former Republican) Media Matters (David Brock, former self-described right wing hit man) who are all in for Hillary in order to have two parties who will serve the rich and powerful. Having one of the parties not beholden to the owners and fighting for the little guys is simply not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. People like these are propaganda experts, and they do their jobs well. No one is pushing the "Bernie should quit for party unity" meme harder than these and other pseudo-liberal sites like TPM and Daily Kos.

But they say "We are the real Democrats, and this is what Democrats are," so the voters ignore the reality and follow along. You can fool most of the people all of the time.


Keep 'em coming, Seth!


Also, such rhetoric is not needed, and is not beneficial to Clinton.

Just imagine:

"Secretary Clinton, some in your party are calling on Senator Sanders to drop out of the race at this time, to help unify the party. What is your take on that?"

"Well, first, I'm very confident - and not just me, but pretty much every analyst who looks at the numbers agrees - that my campaign will maintain the strong lead we hold in pledged delegates, and I will be our party's nominee in Philadelphia in July. That said, it's important for the party, and for every state to run its process, and for every voter to have their say. The party will be unified at the convention, and through to victory in November. Senator Sanders has obviously inspired a lot of Democratic voters, and we look forward to not just defeating Donald Trump in November, but to a USA that rejects the politics of fear and hatred and divisiveness for generations to come."

What awfulness would happen if the Clinton campaign were to be engaging and confident toward the Sanders campaign, rather than nasty and vindictive?

The divisiveness is coming from the Clinton camp. It's who they are and how they operate.