Re: A question for you, Dan...

location: back to the wilderness

listening to: static

registered: 1999.11.22

posts: 6470
[view all posts]

Sorry, Dan...but you are quite wrong. Look it up. Hillary did not concede even though she had lost. She did have about 40 more delegates than Sanders but the big key was Obama had secured the number of delegates he needed to win the nomination...not needing super delegates to push him over the top.

Hillary this time out still has not secured enough delegates to win the nomination and will need super delegates to get to the number.

So, in truth Sanders is much closer than Hillary was when she refused to concede to Obama in June of 2008. Then Hillary took 4 days issuing her demands that she be given a prominent role in the administration.

Plus I would throw in that Obama was not the target of an FBI criminal investigation at the time that could cause him to be indicted.

So, Sanders has a far better case for hanging around into June than Clinton did in 2008.

–--
'The only way to avoid getting crushed by absurdity, is to humbly include the absurd in our calculations.'

Reg (view)

Hillary this time out still has not secured enough delegates to win the nomination and will need super delegates to get to the number.

Plus I would throw in that Obama was not the target of an FBI criminal investigation at the time that could cause him to be indicted.

So, Sanders has a far better case for hanging around into June than Clinton did in 2008.

–--
'The only way to avoid getting crushed by absurdity, is to humbly include the absurd in our calculations.'

[login] | [register]

you need to be logged in to post and reply to message board posts

Democracy in America ? – Dslacker on June 9th, 2016