Obama endorses Clinton - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killer900;50487805]Hillary didn't make that tweet[/QUOTE] Her social media team made it on her behalf. There's no way to prove that she did or did not make that tweet, but that account is supposed to represent her, so no matter who made it, it's connected with her.

[QUOTE=Tudd;50487333]I just can't wait for Trump to destroy her ass in debates when she finally doesn't have a opponent she can easily deflect.[/QUOTE] why does everyone think trump will destroy hillary? he's an emotional man baby. anyone with half a brain (hint: none of the 2016 GOP candidates) can play him like a fiddle.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50488180]It's been pointed out a lot, but Obama is the first incumbent president in a few decades to have actively campaigned for his party's nominee, and it's pretty unusual that a president in his final year in office is popular enough to be able to do so - in 2008, Bush was unpopular as fuck and was made to stay as far-the-fuck-away from McCain's campaign as possible, while in 2000 Gore made the controversial decision to push Clinton away even though he was still pretty popular. Don't know how active Reagan was in campaigning for Bush in 1988, maybe that was the last time this happened?[/QUOTE] Let's be honest, people would have probably still voted for Regan if they could. Bush Sr. was basically diet Regan. Actually it's Regan's pro business legacy that the Clintons shifted the Democrats around to get the WH in the first place [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;50493294]why does everyone think trump will destroy hillary? he's an emotional man baby. anyone with half a brain (hint: none of the 2016 GOP candidates) can play him like a fiddle.[/QUOTE] He writes at a 4th grade level and babbles at a 3rd grade level, to use his own words, it's disgusting it really is.

[QUOTE=Bobie;50493294]why does everyone think trump will destroy hillary? he's an emotional man baby. anyone with half a brain (hint: none of the 2016 GOP candidates) can play him like a fiddle.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump: The guy who calls his opponents losers despite being the loser who lost to the loser who lost to Obama. :v:

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;50493864]Donald Trump: The guy who calls his opponents losers despite being the loser who lost to the loser who lost to Obama. :v:[/QUOTE] "We have to go deeper." But seriously, this is sheer irony coming from Obama. By rights, this should discredit his reputation and legacy as a president. But it won't.

[QUOTE=adamsz;50496314]"We have to go deeper." But seriously, this is sheer irony coming from Obama. By rights, this should discredit his reputation and legacy as a president. But it won't.[/QUOTE] It's more a testament to how strong his popularity still is that he can still endorse his party candidate, unlike past presidents.

[QUOTE=adamsz;50496314]"We have to go deeper." But seriously, this is sheer irony coming from Obama. By rights, this should discredit his reputation and legacy as a president. But it won't.[/QUOTE] He endorsed the person who won the primary. If Sanders had won he would be endorsing him. I don't understand how so many people are failing to grasp this.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50496790]He endorsed the person who won the primary. If Sanders had won he would be endorsing him. I don't understand how so many people are failing to grasp this.[/QUOTE] It's the same logic that's being using to [url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-ap-announcing-clintons-victory-was-an-embarras.html]call AP an 'embarrassment to journalism'[/url] for reporting the news that Clinton had won

[QUOTE=smurfy;50496959]It's the same logic that's being using to [url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-ap-announcing-clintons-victory-was-an-embarras.html]call AP an 'embarrassment to journalism'[/url] for reporting the news that Clinton had won[/QUOTE] Did you read that article? AP did not "report that Clinton had won". They called the election the night before a major primary based on a handful of anonymous superdelegates. That's completely fucked up and disrespectful to millions of voters. It depresses the vote - for both camps. Hillary would have won no matter what, AP just jumped the gun because they wanted to be first.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497481]Did you read that article? AP did not "report that Clinton had won". They called the election the night before a major primary based on a handful of anonymous superdelegates. That's completely fucked up and disrespectful to millions of voters. It depresses the vote - for both camps. Hillary would have won no matter what, AP just jumped the gun because they wanted to be first.[/QUOTE] Imagine if they'd got a dozen new superdelegates for Sanders the night before, and they held it back. The day after Sanders loses California: "Btw Sanders got a dozen new superdelegates on Monday but we decided not to tell anyone". I'm pretty sure you'd be furious and would slam the AP for holding it back to help Clinton. The only fair way to do it was to report the information as soon as they got it, as they have always done, and as they had always planned to do. Also what's the threshold for this? If a superdelegate pledges two days before an election, do they hold it back? Three days? A week? If it was the day before one primary and a week before another, when do they report it? And if you want to ban superdelegates from revealing their votes entirely before the convention, then you're banning all Democrats in Congress from endorsing anyone. So someone like Tulsi Gabbard, for example, couldn't have endorsed Sanders because to do would be to reveal her superdelegate vote.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50497543]Imagine if they'd got a dozen new superdelegates for Sanders the night before, and they held it back. The day after Sanders loses California: "Btw Sanders got a dozen new superdelegates on Monday but we decided not to tell anyone". I'm pretty sure you'd be furious and would slam the AP for holding it back to help Clinton. The only fair way to do it was to report the information as soon as they got it, as they have always done, and as they had always planned to do. Also what's the threshold for this? If a superdelegate pledges two days before an election, do they hold it back? Three days? A week? If it was the day before one primary and a week before another, when do they report it? And if you want to ban superdelegates from revealing their votes entirely before the convention, then you're banning all Democrats in Congress from endorsing anyone. So someone like Tulsi Gabbard, for example, couldn't have endorsed Sanders because to do would be to reveal her superdelegate vote.[/QUOTE] That's not the same thing because those superdelegates wouldn't put Sanders over the top. You're totally missing the context of the situation. If Sanders was leading and the AP called the election for him the night before a major primary yes that's still fucked up and I would still be criticizing them for that. What you are essentially telling people is "the race is over, don't bother voting." This hurts both Hillary and Sanders supporters. It isn't about superdelegates endorsing anybody, it's about AP using anonymous sources and telling us "Hillary clinched it" without telling us who put her over the top. It was a wholly unnecessary move. They reported it at 8pm on Monday night, yes they could have waited a day and not depressed the vote.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497724]What you are essentially telling people is "the race is over [/QUOTE] Arguably, yes [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497724]don't bother voting." [/QUOTE] Absolutely not. This is entirely your interpretatoin of the story. No part of the AP's piece even implicitly told people not to bother voting and specifically mentioned several important primaries are still going to occur with him on the ballot.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50497739]Arguably, yes Absolutely not. This is entirely your interpretatoin of the story. No part of the AP's piece even implicitly told people not to bother voting and specifically mentioned several important primaries are still going to occur with him on the ballot.[/QUOTE] Obviously AP didn't say "don't bother voting" but that's the logical conclusion, wouldn't you say? If you agree that the headline was essentially "the race is over" you don't think that's going to dissuade people from going to the polls? [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] This is also putting aside the fact that superdelegates haven't voted so she didn't "clinch" the nomination but apparently nobody cares about the actual rules of the nominating process.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497759]Obviously AP didn't say "don't bother voting" but that's the logical conclusion, wouldn't you say? If you agree that the headline was essentially "the race is over" you don't think that's going to dissuade people from going to the polls? [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] This is also putting aside the fact that superdelegates haven't voted so she didn't "clinch" the nomination but apparently nobody cares about the actual rules of the nominating process.[/QUOTE] Yeah it was a pretty shameless attempt at making them first to report on a win.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497759]Obviously AP didn't say "don't bother voting" but that's the logical conclusion, wouldn't you say? If you agree that the headline was essentially "the race is over" you don't think that's going to dissuade people from going to the polls? [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] This is also putting aside the fact that superdelegates haven't voted so she didn't "clinch" the nomination but apparently nobody cares about the actual rules of the nominating process.[/QUOTE] No I don't think that's the logical conclusion. You're just feeling victimized and trying to justify him losing democratically by playing into this mass conspiracy against Sanders idea that has been cooked up for the past few months.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50497793]No I don't think that's the logical conclusion. You're just feeling victimized and trying to justify him losing democratically by playing into this mass conspiracy against Sanders idea that has been cooked up for the past few months.[/QUOTE] What conspiracy, dude? AP fucked up, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. So you are saying that calling the race over doesn't depress the vote? That superdelegates vote before July 25th? How about you listen to the DNC themselves? 0:50~ [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOd1KHe5reY[/media]

Point of interest, that interview is on CNN, and any time I watch CNN (regularly at work) they always make sure to distinguish delegates from super delegates. As long as they distinguish the two I don't see the problem. The outlets that don't are being lazy, and lazy journalism is bad.

That's good for CNN. Too bad about AP, though.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50497822]What conspiracy, dude? AP fucked up, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. So you are saying that calling the race over doesn't depress the vote? That superdelegates vote before July 25th? How about you listen to the DNC themselves? 0:50~ [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOd1KHe5reY[/media][/QUOTE] It isn't the Associated Press's job to make sure that both candidates supporters feel important. That's entirely antithetical to the idea of journalism in the first place--They report the news, the facts, regardless of whether it's good or bad news; or if that news makes certain parties happy, or upset.

Their job is to be objective. Part of being objective is to acknowledge that superdelegates do not vote until the convention and that an indictment, while unlikely, is possible. It is not only incorrect it is unethical to call the race with millions of votes left to go.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cki5LhlXAAA0gMY.jpg:large[/img] Who even runs this shit.

That was not even a burn wtf, it was just pure cringe.