The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it possible that a bunch of unpledged Republican delegates could suddenly abandon Trump? Maybe, theoretically. And I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

But so fucking what? It doesn't change the fact that your attempt to portray the two situations as analogous/equivalent is highly dishonest.

Is it possible that Clinton loses California? Maybe, theoretically. And I don't believe I ever said otherwise.

Again, not analogous.

It is a hell of a lot less likely for Trump to suddenly lose a horde of delegates than for Clinton to lose California. Considering we actually have at least two recent polls that show California neck and neck (with Sanders ahead in one).

But you keep ignoring that.

But so fucking what? It doesn't change the fact that she gets the nomination. It only changes how much of an ass Bernie's going to be.

In what way is Bernie being an ass, at least more than any other candidate is likely to be? Because he's daring to run instead of conceding to the Chosen One?

Also, the fact remains that Clinton is not yet the nominee, that it is possible for Sanders to get a majority of pledged delegates, and that the super delegates would be under tremendous pressure to back him if he did.

And that's not even getting into the possibility of Clinton being indicted.

These are facts, and its shocking the amount of whining we get from Clintonites/Sanders opponents whenever anyone dares to say these facts rather than pretending that they don't exist in favour of the inevitability narrative.

Everybody in this thread knows it. Except for you.

I have long acknowledged that Clinton is likely to be the nominee. You know this as well.

Likely, however, is not the same as certain.

And even if Sanders doesn't win, its arguably worth staying in to a) build influence and get more delegates at the convention, and b) because he's sticking to his God damn word about giving every state a chance to vote.

But we've been over this again and again, and it doesn't stop people like you from posting the same crap.

[Flagg]

I would think you'd be a little less confident after the State Department report. Maybe she won't be indicted, but this has moved past something that can just be dismissed as a Republican witch hunt.

It will cease to appear as such once Dick Cheney is indicted for all the confidential documents he took home.

And BINGO was his name-o!

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I think we can all agree, for the most part, that Dick Cheney should probably be indicted too.

Where we seem to disagree is on weather the failure to indict Cheney means Clinton is somehow also excused.

[Flagg]

Well, I think we can all agree, for the most part, that Dick Cheney should probably be indicted too.

Where we seem to disagree is on weather the failure to indict Cheney means Clinton is somehow also excused.

The problem is that there are a slew of "people" who engaged in egregious lawbreaking, including torture, ordering torture, and all sorts of other abuses walking around free, yet there's a giant bugaboo fueled by Republicans about Hillary Clinton and fucking emails in the middle of an election year. It's political theater, and gets worse reviews than your average network shit-com.

[Gandalf]

Perhaps Obama could pass a law granting email server location immunity, like he did for people who tortured their way around the Middle East?

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps Obama could pass a law granting email server location immunity, like he did for people who tortured their way around the Middle East?

Heh.

No law that would help Clinton would get through the current Congress.

But, while it won't help her get elected, I think there's a pretty good chance he'll pardon Clinton before leaving office if she's indicted.

[Vendetta]

Also, the fact remains that Clinton is not yet the nominee, that it is possible for Sanders to get a majority of pledged delegates, and that the super delegates would be under tremendous pressure to back him if he did.

It might be mathematically possible, but that possibility is about as realistic as the election being postponed because North Korea invaded Long Beach.

In order to get a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders needs to win slightly more than two thirds of the remaining delegates. Being that he is only barely ahead in some polls, that is, face it, not going to happen.

The primaries are over, Bernie is the only person who doesn't know it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, the fact remains that Clinton is not yet the nominee, that it is possible for Sanders to get a majority of pledged delegates, and that the super delegates would be under tremendous pressure to back him if he did.

It might be mathematically possible, but that possibility is about as realistic as the election being postponed because North Korea invaded Long Beach.

In order to get a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders needs to win slightly more than two thirds of the remaining delegates. Being that he is only barely ahead in some polls, that is, face it, not going to happen.

The primaries are over, Bernie is the only person who doesn't know it.

Factually they're not over, since Sanders is still running. And in fact as I recall, Tuesday is the single biggest day after Super Tuesday.

Again, its unlikely for Sanders to win. But I will point out that he has exceeded polls in the past (Michigan being the obvious example).

That said, I think that most likely he will fall short of the average he needs in California (though their is a very real chance that he will win California), and any compensating strong wins he might have in Montana and the Dakotas will be off-set by New Jersey and DC, and possibly Puerto Rico.

I've heard jack about how he's fairing in New Mexico and the Virgin Islands, though. But I guess we'll know today for the Virgin Islands.

[Flagg]

Also, the fact remains that Clinton is not yet the nominee, that it is possible for Sanders to get a majority of pledged delegates, and that the super delegates would be under tremendous pressure to back him if he did.

It might be mathematically possible, but that possibility is about as realistic as the election being postponed because North Korea invaded Long Beach.

In order to get a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders needs to win slightly more than two thirds of the remaining delegates. Being that he is only barely ahead in some polls, that is, face it, not going to happen.

The primaries are over, Bernie is the only person who doesn't know it.

Seriously. I'm getting sick of the political walking dead constantly saying its mathematically possible, ignoring that it's as likely as ham being served at Passover.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's a hilarious choice of analogy, considering I just recently heard that the culturally (if not particularly religious) Jewish Bernie Sanders does, in fact, eat pork.

Also, one more example of how the official results won't necessarily be indicative of the actual will of the voters:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... ls-closed/

In early May, Puerto Rico’s Democratic Party announced that more than 1,500 polling places would be available for the island’s June 5 Democratic primary. A few weeks later, they slashed that number to just over 430 — a reduction of more than two thirds.
In 2008, the island’s last competitive Democratic primary, there were more than 2,300 polling places.
Some are warning of long lines and voters left unable to access the ballot box, as an estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday, and polling places will only be open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m..
Worse, many voters will have to visit two separate locations to cast ballots in the presidential primary and the local primaries held the same day. Voter turnout and engagement has for years been much higher on the island than in the 50 U.S. states, but these changes may present too heavy a burden for low-income residents who lack transportation options or who need to work.
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are up in arms about the polling place reductions, calling it a “fix” and drawing parallels to Arizona’s disastrous primary. Arizona’s most populous county closed two-thirds of its polling locations ahead of its April primary, forcing some voters to wait in line more than six hours to cast a ballot.

Looks like Arizona-style bullshit, and this time the blame lies squarely on Democrats.

Hmm, I'd be interested to know if their's a correlation between which polling stations were closed and which were in areas with high support for a particular candidate.

Ie is this deliberate voter suppression, or just some money-saving horse shit.

[Flagg]

I don't get why parties hold primaries in territories that can't vote in the general. It's time and money wasting. And I don't have a clue which candidate they have largely supported, so it has nothing to do with that.

[Dalton]

Just a quick note here. The next motherfucker to derail or hijack this thread with insipid bullshit will quickly earn themselves a one week ban.

[Flagg]

Just a quick note here. The next motherfucker to derail or hijack this thread with insipid bullshit will quickly earn themselves a one week ban.

Speaking of, I'm always missing the really fucked up stupid crap that must make you poor mods and admins question your place in the universe. And for that, I'm grateful. And not brown nosing at all, but I'm buying a fake round of fake drinks on Tev's handling of that fun fest. I'd have nuked everyone from orbit and let God sort it out.

Now let us never mention it again.

Now for something completely different:
Anyone know if Dump has shit all over Muhammed Ali yet?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't get why parties hold primaries in territories that can't vote in the general. It's time and money wasting. And I don't have a clue which candidate they have largely supported, so it has nothing to do with that.

I'd say its worth doing on principle precisely because it is the sole opportunity the residents of said territories have to have any say, however small, in who becomes President. I would not call that a waste of time or money.

And it makes it all the more appalling that the so-called Democratic Party is apparently trying to further disenfranchise already disenfranchised Puerto Ricans. Weather its for the purposes of suppressing the vote, or saving money, or whatever, I hardly even care. Its indefensible.

[Flagg]

I don't get why parties hold primaries in territories that can't vote in the general. It's time and money wasting. And I don't have a clue which candidate they have largely supported, so it has nothing to do with that.

I'd say its worth doing on principle precisely because it is the sole opportunity the residents of said territories have to have any say, however small, in who becomes President. I would not call that a waste of time or money.

And it makes it all the more appalling that the so-called Democratic Party is apparently trying to further disenfranchise already disenfranchised Puerto Ricans. Weather its for the purposes of suppressing the vote, or saving money, or whatever, I hardly even care. Its indefensible.

Why? Puerto Rico has rejected statehood, and no state means no say. I mean if the parties want to give them a say, they can, but I honestly don't think they should. They can't vote for POTUS in November, so IMO it's a waste of money to allow them to cast ballots in a primary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding Dickless Donald and Muhammad Ali, the orange buffoon actually seems to be showing a modicum of tact thus far, although people were quick to contrast this to a past tweet where he mocked and questioned Obama for praising Muslim athletes:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... ammad-ali/

Days after he first called for a total ban on Muslim immigration to the United States last December, Donald Trump questioned whether there is such a thing as a Muslim sports hero:


It was unfathomable that Trump could forget Muhammad Ali, the consensus greatest boxer in history, a world-renown activist-athlete who always put his identity as a Muslim front and center.
As news of Ali’s death circulated this morning, Trump suddenly remembered Ali:


Meanwhile, the Obamas released a statement acknowledging Ali’s Muslim faith and and remembering the champ as having a name “as familiar to the downtrodden in the slums of Southeast Asia and the villages of Africa as it was to the cheering crowds in Madison Square Garden.”


Trump actually met Ali on numerous occasions. In fact, in 2007, Trump was even presented with a Muhammad Ali Award at a charity event hosted by The Greatest himself.
But Ali wasn’t a fan of Trump’s politics. After Trump called for a Muslim ban in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, Ali released a short and stinging statement criticizing Trump’s proposal.
“Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is,” Ali said.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dickless Donald circulates fake photo of African American supporters:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... upporters/

At a Friday afternoon rally in California, Trump sought to highlight his support from minorities.
“Look at my African-American over there,” he shouted.


He seems to have made things worse, with many noting that his phrasing implied ownership over the man.
One of the major hurdles for Donald Trump to win the presidency is his deep unpopularity among non-white voters. A recent survey found Trump is viewed unfavorably by 86% of black voters and 75% of Latinos.
Trump’s comments about the African American man came after reiterating his belief that a federal judge should be disqualified from presiding over the Trump University fraud case because of his “Mexican heritage.” (The judge was born in Indiana.)
This morning on Twitter, Trump was back at it, highlighting the support of an African-American family.


Just one problem. The photo is fake.


It was not taken at a Trump event. Rather, it was taken at the “The 27th annual Midwest Black Family Reunion” held in Ohio in August 2015. The event featured “music, art, chess, children’s games and other activities.”
Last year, Trump attracted controversy when he retweeted fake statistics claiming 81% of white murder victims were murdered by blacks. The actual figure is 14%.
UPDATE JUN 4, 2016 2:21 PM
Speaking to BuzzFeed News, the parents in the photo -- Eddie and Vanessa Perry -- said they are not Trump supporters. They aren't endorsing or publicly supporting anyone. Eddie Perry called Trump's use of the photo "misleading" and "political propaganda."

And in Democratic News, DNC chairwoman and widely alleged Clinton lackey Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been accused of flip-flopping on her support for pay day lenders:

https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/ ... -reversal/

After months of public pressure and a stiff primary challenge from her left, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) reversed her position on payday lending Thursday.
Hours after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unveiled first-ever federal rules for the loans on Thursday, Wasserman Schultz issued a written statement praising the agency’s work on Facebook. “I stand with the CFPB in its efforts to protect Americans from predatory lending,” she wrote. “After reviewing the proposed rule, it is clear to me that the CFPB strikes the right balance and I look forward to working with my constituents and consumer groups as the CFPB works towards a final rule.”
Wasserman Schultz has been a close ally of the predatory industry for years, dating back to her time in the Florida statehouse around the turn of the century. But it wasn’t until this spring, when the official leader of the Democratic party used her heft within the caucus to urge other Democrats to help ensure payday lenders could evade regulation nationwide, that her long advocacy for 400 percent interest rates and endless debt traps for the working poor became a political liability.
In December, Wasserman Schultz signed onto legislation that would have cut up the CFPB’s rules before they were even issued. The influential Democrat went further, circulating a memo urging other House Democrats to support that same bill.
The premise of H.R. 4018 was that the CFPB rules should not be allowed to trump existing state legislation. Leading proponents of the bill argued repeatedly that Florida’s own payday lending law was a “gold standard” for regulating payday lending. It is nothing of the sort, as the data about consumer outcomes in Florida proves. Borrowers face average costs twice as high in Florida as in Colorado, where rules are more strict but payday lending is still allowed. Floridians face an average annual interest rate of 304 percent, compared to 121 percent since Colorado’s reforms.
Wasserman Schultz’s Thursday statement tried to bury her very recent history of seeking to pre-empt the CFPB’s rules. “From the outset of this process, I have said that I trust the CFPB to do what’s right for consumers,” the statement says.
As of Friday afternoon, Wasserman Schultz is still a co-sponsor of the legislation that was explicitly premised on the idea that the CFPB rules would be less good for consumers than Florida’s law. While the law has not moved in committee and is likely functionally dead, it could still theoretically be revived late this year as part of widely anticipated Republican attacks on the agency and the rules. The chairwoman’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Between her work on H.R. 4018 and her tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the payday lending industry, the six-term House veteran has been feeling the heat back home. TV and billboard advertising labeled her “Debt Trap Debbie.”
Bernie Sanders helped raise money for Tim Canova, who is the first primary challenger Wasserman Schultz has ever faced. Canova faces long odds of unseating the powerful chairwoman. But he’s won high-profile union endorsements, and Sanders’ fundraising support has given him a large campaign war chest.
Prominent progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) also appeared to take shots at the Chairwoman, both when the news of her support for H.R. 4018 broke and when the CFPB rules dropped Thursday.



The rules CFPB laid out Thursday stop well short of what consumer advocates had hoped for, and prompted especially fervent criticism from the Pew Charitable Trusts research team that has been working on predatory lending for years. While the rules would provide the first-ever nationwide framework for curbing payday loan abuses, the current shape of the rules leaves significant loopholes for the industry to continue squeezing the poor.
The industry is still publicly scornful of the rules. But they have already won a better deal from the agency than most observers anticipated.

You know, those assholes John Oliver did a show on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw

[Flagg]

Regarding Dickless Donald and Muhammad Ali, the orange buffoon actually seems to be showing a modicum of tact thus far, although people were quick to contrast this to a past tweet where he mocked and questioned Obama for praising Muslim athletes:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... ammad-ali/

Days after he first called for a total ban on Muslim immigration to the United States last December, Donald Trump questioned whether there is such a thing as a Muslim sports hero:


It was unfathomable that Trump could forget Muhammad Ali, the consensus greatest boxer in history, a world-renown activist-athlete who always put his identity as a Muslim front and center.
As news of Ali’s death circulated this morning, Trump suddenly remembered Ali:


Meanwhile, the Obamas released a statement acknowledging Ali’s Muslim faith and and remembering the champ as having a name “as familiar to the downtrodden in the slums of Southeast Asia and the villages of Africa as it was to the cheering crowds in Madison Square Garden.”


Trump actually met Ali on numerous occasions. In fact, in 2007, Trump was even presented with a Muhammad Ali Award at a charity event hosted by The Greatest himself.
But Ali wasn’t a fan of Trump’s politics. After Trump called for a Muslim ban in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, Ali released a short and stinging statement criticizing Trump’s proposal.
“Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is,” Ali said.

Well, I expect the hate to flow when all the republican Vietnam war draft dodging chicken hawks start tearing into his legacy Monday. What's the over/under on Rush calling his daughter some sort of lesbian or ape?

[Flagg]

Dickless Donald circulates fake photo of African American supporters:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016 ... upporters/

At a Friday afternoon rally in California, Trump sought to highlight his support from minorities.
“Look at my African-American over there,” he shouted.


He seems to have made things worse, with many noting that his phrasing implied ownership over the man.
One of the major hurdles for Donald Trump to win the presidency is his deep unpopularity among non-white voters. A recent survey found Trump is viewed unfavorably by 86% of black voters and 75% of Latinos.
Trump’s comments about the African American man came after reiterating his belief that a federal judge should be disqualified from presiding over the Trump University fraud case because of his “Mexican heritage.” (The judge was born in Indiana.)
This morning on Twitter, Trump was back at it, highlighting the support of an African-American family.


Just one problem. The photo is fake.


It was not taken at a Trump event. Rather, it was taken at the “The 27th annual Midwest Black Family Reunion” held in Ohio in August 2015. The event featured “music, art, chess, children’s games and other activities.”
Last year, Trump attracted controversy when he retweeted fake statistics claiming 81% of white murder victims were murdered by blacks. The actual figure is 14%.
UPDATE JUN 4, 2016 2:21 PM
Speaking to BuzzFeed News, the parents in the photo -- Eddie and Vanessa Perry -- said they are not Trump supporters. They aren't endorsing or publicly supporting anyone. Eddie Perry called Trump's use of the photo "misleading" and "political propaganda."

And in Democratic News, DNC chairwoman and widely alleged Clinton lackey Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been accused of flip-flopping on her support for pay day lenders:

https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/ ... -reversal/

After months of public pressure and a stiff primary challenge from her left, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) reversed her position on payday lending Thursday.
Hours after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unveiled first-ever federal rules for the loans on Thursday, Wasserman Schultz issued a written statement praising the agency’s work on Facebook. “I stand with the CFPB in its efforts to protect Americans from predatory lending,” she wrote. “After reviewing the proposed rule, it is clear to me that the CFPB strikes the right balance and I look forward to working with my constituents and consumer groups as the CFPB works towards a final rule.”
Wasserman Schultz has been a close ally of the predatory industry for years, dating back to her time in the Florida statehouse around the turn of the century. But it wasn’t until this spring, when the official leader of the Democratic party used her heft within the caucus to urge other Democrats to help ensure payday lenders could evade regulation nationwide, that her long advocacy for 400 percent interest rates and endless debt traps for the working poor became a political liability.
In December, Wasserman Schultz signed onto legislation that would have cut up the CFPB’s rules before they were even issued. The influential Democrat went further, circulating a memo urging other House Democrats to support that same bill.
The premise of H.R. 4018 was that the CFPB rules should not be allowed to trump existing state legislation. Leading proponents of the bill argued repeatedly that Florida’s own payday lending law was a “gold standard” for regulating payday lending. It is nothing of the sort, as the data about consumer outcomes in Florida proves. Borrowers face average costs twice as high in Florida as in Colorado, where rules are more strict but payday lending is still allowed. Floridians face an average annual interest rate of 304 percent, compared to 121 percent since Colorado’s reforms.
Wasserman Schultz’s Thursday statement tried to bury her very recent history of seeking to pre-empt the CFPB’s rules. “From the outset of this process, I have said that I trust the CFPB to do what’s right for consumers,” the statement says.
As of Friday afternoon, Wasserman Schultz is still a co-sponsor of the legislation that was explicitly premised on the idea that the CFPB rules would be less good for consumers than Florida’s law. While the law has not moved in committee and is likely functionally dead, it could still theoretically be revived late this year as part of widely anticipated Republican attacks on the agency and the rules. The chairwoman’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Between her work on H.R. 4018 and her tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the payday lending industry, the six-term House veteran has been feeling the heat back home. TV and billboard advertising labeled her “Debt Trap Debbie.”
Bernie Sanders helped raise money for Tim Canova, who is the first primary challenger Wasserman Schultz has ever faced. Canova faces long odds of unseating the powerful chairwoman. But he’s won high-profile union endorsements, and Sanders’ fundraising support has given him a large campaign war chest.
Prominent progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) also appeared to take shots at the Chairwoman, both when the news of her support for H.R. 4018 broke and when the CFPB rules dropped Thursday.



The rules CFPB laid out Thursday stop well short of what consumer advocates had hoped for, and prompted especially fervent criticism from the Pew Charitable Trusts research team that has been working on predatory lending for years. While the rules would provide the first-ever nationwide framework for curbing payday loan abuses, the current shape of the rules leaves significant loopholes for the industry to continue squeezing the poor.
The industry is still publicly scornful of the rules. But they have already won a better deal from the agency than most observers anticipated.

You know, those assholes John Oliver did a show on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw

I'm not a fan of Wasserman-Schultz (to put it mildly), but what the fuck does that have to do with the presidential campaign aside from you trying to tar Clinton with guilt by association?

[The Romulan Republic]

If you're suggesting that it is off-topic for the thread, I would reply that while this thread has been largely focussed on the Presidential race, the OP and title do not actually specify that it is only for the Presidential election, and it would probably be good if people paid a little more attention to Congressional races.

As for why I linked it to the Presidential race, I would also say that it is significant because Schultz is a known Clinton ally who has been repeatedly accused of using her position to favour Clinton, and is representative of the kind of Democratic establishment corruption that has become a central issue of the Democratic Primary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fuck it. Clinton wins Virgin Islands.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national ... 86101.html

Hillary Clinton moved a small step toward securing the Democratic nomination Saturday night by winning the Virgin Islands caucus, NBC News projects.
Only seven delegates are up for grabs, which have yet to be distributed between Clinton and rival Bernie Sanders.
Calif. Governor Backs Clinton Days Before Primary
Clinton is less than 70 delegates away from the 2,383 majority needed to be declared the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Sixty delegates are up for grabs when Puerto Rico Democrats hold their primary on Sunday. In both island territories, delegates will be awarded proportionally based on the results.
'Ellen': DeGeneres Helps Clinton Narrow VP List
Six last states — including delegate-rich New Jersey and California — hold their primary contests Tuesday.

Ugg. It seems you can't find an article which doesn't count super delegates as finalized Clinton votes to save your life.

But anyway, another Clinton win, if a very small one.

I've heard its expected to be a ridiculous landslide in her favour too, but I can't find any solid numbers. Doesn't seem to be much coverage of it. The territories always get overlooked, it seems.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't get why parties hold primaries in territories that can't vote in the general. It's time and money wasting. And I don't have a clue which candidate they have largely supported, so it has nothing to do with that.

I'd say its worth doing on principle precisely because it is the sole opportunity the residents of said territories have to have any say, however small, in who becomes President. I would not call that a waste of time or money.

And it makes it all the more appalling that the so-called Democratic Party is apparently trying to further disenfranchise already disenfranchised Puerto Ricans. Weather its for the purposes of suppressing the vote, or saving money, or whatever, I hardly even care. Its indefensible.

Why? Puerto Rico has rejected statehood, and no state means no say. I mean if the parties want to give them a say, they can, but I honestly don't think they should. They can't vote for POTUS in November, so IMO it's a waste of money to allow them to cast ballots in a primary.

Might as well address this too.

www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/

In an overshadowed Election Day contest, Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood in a nonbinding referendum, marking the first time such an initiative garnered a majority.
Puerto Ricans were asked about their desires in two parts. First, by a 54% to 46% margin, voters rejected their current status as a U.S. commonwealth. In a separate question, 61% chose statehood as the alternative, compared with 33% for the semi-autonomous "sovereign free association" and 6% for outright independence.
While the results may be an indicator of what Puerto Ricans want, statehood will not be possible without congressional action in Washington, something that is not guaranteed.
Read more: Puerto Rico: A forgotten front in America's drug war?
An economic downturn and shrinking population were the factors that contributed to the support for statehood, where referendums in 1967, 1993 and 1998 failed, Puerto Rico Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock said.
"I think people just came to realize that the current relationship simply does not create the number of jobs that we need," he said.
English before statehood in Puerto Rico?

English before statehood in Puerto Rico? 02:39
Hispanic voters under siege?

Hispanic voters under siege? 02:16
Hispanic Heritage Month - Puerto Rico

Hispanic Heritage Month - Puerto Rico 02:15
An exodus of residents from the island has culminated in a staggering statistic: Fifty-eight percent of Puerto Ricans live in the mainland United States, McClintock said.
Opinion: Treat U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico fairly
"When you have a political status that scares away half of your population, it is time to reject that political status," he said.
But some analysts say the views on statehood have not changed, despite Tuesday's results.
The preference of many voters is to consider a report by the Obama administration that lays out several noncolonial options before choosing an alternative status, said Jorge Benitez, a political scientist at the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras. This option, which is supported by the party that won the governorship, did not appear on the ballot.
"This isn't to say that support for statehood hasn't increased; it has," Benitez said. "But the only thing we can decipher with certainty from the vote is that the people of Puerto Rico want a change to the current status.
"It isn't clear what change we want, but we want change," he said.
The results of the referendum met with other criticisms, too.
There were voters who prefer the current status but didn't agree with the way it was defined on the ballot, thereby inflating the number of votes against the status quo, said Luis Agrait, a history professor at the University of Puerto Rico.
Secondly, a large number of ballots -- one-third of all votes cast -- were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%, Agrait argues.
Opinion: 'But what's a Latino?'
But McClintock accounts for the number of blank votes by explaining that those who voted to keep the current status would have left the question of alternatives blank.
The referendum is nonbinding, but it compels lawmakers in Washington to act, he said.
"The people are withdrawing their consent to be governed the way they are governed," McClintock said, citing the Declaration of Independence, which states that a government's power comes from the consent of those governed.
"Congress will have to address this and will have to pay attention," he said.
The roughly 4 million residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens but can't vote for president. However, the almost 5 million Puerto Ricans living in the 50 U.S. states have full voting rights.
Under its status as a commonwealth, Puerto Rico is subject to U.S. federal laws, though island residents are exempt from some federal taxes. Puerto Rico has a nonvoting representative in Congress.
The territory played a role in presidential politics this year during the GOP primaries, when candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum visited the island, seeking its delegates for the primary election.
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, created a small political firestorm when he said English should be the principal language in Puerto Rico before it could gain statehood.
Romney said he would have "no preconditions" on language for Puerto Rico to gain statehood, though during a CNN debate, he said English should be the United States' official language.
Last year, President Barack Obama made an official visit to Puerto Rico, the first such visit by a president in 50 years.

The treatment of the territories is absolutely shameful, a remaining legal bastion of second class citizen hood. Put the blame where it should go, on the US government, and not on the people of the territories.

[maraxus2]

Also, one more example of how the official results won't necessarily be indicative of the actual will of the voters

No shit. Hillary won in both Nebraska and Washington's beauty pageant primaries. More people voted for her than caucused in either state. She got zero delegates out of it.

In more interesting news, the Dem Primary has been waaaaay better for the CA Democrats than I would have imagined.

With one of the most closely watched presidential primary seasons in modern times , California's voter rolls grew by almost 650,000 in the final six weeks of registration. And three of every four new voters were Democrats.

On Friday, Secretary of State Alex Padilla released the final report of voter registration prior to the June 7 statewide primary. The deadline to register for Tuesday's election was May 23.

Of the 646,220 people who registered in the final rush —between April 8 and May 23 — 76% became Democrats.

California's total voter registration now stands at 17,915,053. That's the largest number ever registered heading into a primary election.

And the rush all happened at the end. In fact, 98% of all the growth in California's voter ranks in 2016 happened in just the last 45 days of the registration season.

"Part of this surge was fueled through social media, as Facebook sent a reminder to all California users to register to vote," Padilla said in a statement. "It is clear that Californians are engaged and excited about this election."

While hundreds of thousands registered to vote, the percentage of eligible Californians who have registered is slightly lower than at the same time in 2012. And it remains lower than its historic highs of a generation ago.

The springtime influx of Democrats has widened the gap between the state's dominant party and other subsets of voters, most notably Republicans.

Republicans now trail Democrats in size by more than 17 percentage points, and Democrats have topped the 8 million mark for the first time. Even so, the GOP ranks did grow slightly over the final few weeks of voter registration — just not as fast as Democrats.

The surprise may have been the slight drop in Californians who are unaffiliated with any party, known as having "no party preference." Often the fastest-growing part of the electorate, some unaffiliated voters decided to join a political party in the final 45 days of registration.

That could be a function of the presidential race. While Democrats are allowing "no party preference" voters to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders next week, Republicans are holding a closed presidential primary. Only registered GOP voters can participate.

The state's minority political parties all saw their numbers decline, none more than California's American Independent Party. In the weeks following a Los Angeles Times investigation showing widespread confusion about the party's name and being an "independent" voter , AIP membership fell by about two-tenths of a percent.

This strikes me as a good thing, beyond the obvious reasons. The CA Dems are to Congress and the DNC what the Texas GOP is to Congress and the RNC; a solid (hopefully immovable) bastion of support and top-to-bottom political control throughout the state. Also apparently it's eating the CA Green party by taking their goofy voters and bringing them into the Democratic fold. This strikes me as less of a good thing; the CA Greens never have any influence on anything out here (especially with the Top-Two primary), but gives a false impression of the voters the CA Dems can count on.

That aside, the fact that the CAGOP continues its slide into utter irrelevence and powerlessness does bring a smile to my face.

Fuck it. Clinton wins Virgin Islands.

Ugg. It seems you can't find an article which doesn't count super delegates as finalized Clinton votes to save your life.

But anyway, another Clinton win, if a very small one.

I've heard its expected to be a ridiculous landslide in her favour too, but I can't find any solid numbers. Doesn't seem to be much coverage of it. The territories always get overlooked, it seems.

Or, you know, you could just look at my links every once in a while. Why are you so mad all the time?

[Flagg]

If you're suggesting that it is off-topic for the thread, I would reply that while this thread has been largely focussed on the Presidential race, the OP and title do not actually specify that it is only for the Presidential election, and it would probably be good if people paid a little more attention to Congressional races.

As for why I linked it to the Presidential race, I would also say that it is significant because Schultz is a known Clinton ally who has been repeatedly accused of using her position to favour Clinton, and is representative of the kind of Democratic establishment corruption that has become a central issue of the Democratic Primary.

So you're tarring Clinton with guilt by association. Got it. And it's corrupt for the Democratic establishment to favor the candidate who's a decades long member of the party with establishment connections as opposed to the months long member who is almost literally a party outsider, when? I mean you do understand that Sanders could have 99.9% of the delegates and the party mucky mucks could tell them to fuck off and nominate a native born 36 year old hobo with no felonies, and it would be perfectly legal, right?

[Mr Bean]

Note also the counting of superdelegates into the official count. The Democratic party has gone both ways on "Hey Media you should totally count super-delegates into the total" to a few months ago when they changed it to "No don't count superdelegates since they can change their vote at any time unlike pledged delegates"

The official count is 1,769 Clinton, 1,501 Sanders. Clinton has 547 Superdelegates to Bernie Sanders 46 to emphasis on lopsided that is. And while the Democratic party is officially still telling the media "don't count super-delegates into delegate totals" the media have given up on that. Note they did listen to them until New York at which point the Supers got added back in because CNN and MSNBC want to call this election at 8pm EST next Tuesday never mind Califorina never mind if Sanders sweeps the states (Unlikely) to the point at which Chris Mathews has said The networks will call the election at 8pm, are planning are to do so regardless of results.