The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Napoleon the Clown]

I demand proof that Bernie delegates engaged in violence. I demand proof that Bernie delegates made threats. I demand proof that said delegates were selected by the Bernie Sanders campaign. If you are unable to prove the last of these, your claim that they are the equivalent of employees is invalid. It indicates they are private individuals who choose to associate with his campaign by giving their personal support and are thus closer to customers of a business than its employees.

I don't need violence to say 'unethical behavior'. They leaked her address and phone number to the internet and she and her family have been drenched with targeted threats since. Try fucking harder asshat.

Proof the Sanders campaign selected these individuals to be delegates? Also, proof that delegates are the ones who did it.

[Gaidin]

Proof the Sanders campaign selected these individuals to be delegates? Also, proof that delegates are the ones who did it.

Seriously. It's their campaign. Prove they didn't. This one's on you.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Proof the Sanders campaign selected these individuals to be delegates? Also, proof that delegates are the ones who did it.

Seriously. It's their campaign. Prove they didn't. This one's on you.

So you refuse to prove it? I accept your concession. You're saying that Bernie should be held responsible, and for that to be logical his campaign must have chosen the guilty individuals as delegates.

[maraxus2]

I demand proof that Bernie delegates engaged in violence. I demand proof that Bernie delegates made threats. I demand proof that said delegates were selected by the Bernie Sanders campaign. If you are unable to prove the last of these, your claim that they are the equivalent of employees is invalid. It indicates they are private individuals who choose to associate with his campaign by giving their personal support and are thus closer to customers of a business than its employees.

Dude, get a grip. Are you seriously arguing that Sanders' campaign had nothing to do with that delegate selection? When they had paid campaign staff directing the event? Are you for real?


You know what's not helping the Dems in their inevitable battle with Trump? Sanders' campaign's slide into nihilism and suicidal destruction. Jeff Weaver saying that math is a media narrative is not helping. Or Weaver saying that saying that Barbara Boxer - Sanders' ideological twin - didn't have a right to feel threatened when she was being threatened in Nevada. Or Sanders lying to his supporters and insisting, with no reason or evidence, that he has a viable path to the nomination.

And you know what's REALLY not helping? Sanders and his campaign not-so-subtly insisting that the Democratic Primary is illegitimate. And that a Sanders loss is evidence of fraud, not defeat.

He is alienating all of the allies that he'll need in August by portraying them as The Enemy, and yet wants The Enemy to support him. Not because he won or anything, but on the basis of a bunch of bullshit polls and life is hard. He's no longer fighting for The People, or progressive policy, or any of that shit, but for changes to the Democratic Nominating process. And his campaign is actively saying that they don't give much of a shit if the attacks against Clinton hurt her in the general. I'm completely bewildered by this weird grievance feedback-loop going on among some Sanders supporters. And I hope that Clinton gives him just enough to get us through November and then promptly tells him to fuck off once she's in the White House.

[maraxus2]

As for maraxus2, you're a pathetic Clinton shill and its plain for all to see. Bernie already condemned violence as you yourself quoted, and yet you attack him for it. Sure, he could say more, but there is, to my knowledge, zero evidence at all that he orchestrated, condoned, or supports any harassment, threats, or violence. What you want, I dare say, is not his condemnation or disavowment, but his confession. To something their is no evidence of him being responsible for. Because "some Sanders supporters somewhere did something bad" is not the same as "the Sanders campaign is responsible", you worthless, Drumpf-aiding partisan hack.

That you actually have the gaul to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his own people, as if its only a bad thing when it happens to Clinton supporters, is just the cherry on the shit sunday that is your brain.

You even say their are no both sides, outright saying that Sanders and his supporters are entirely responsible right after quoting the allegations of violence against them. Have you no shame at all? Do you think Bernie supporters are fair game for gunshots?

And yes, he should sue for libel, because already the vicious lie against his campaign, and the implication that Sanders himself condones terrorism, is taking hold. As your post illustrates.

Lol. I would love to see Sanders sue the Nevada Dems for saying that his Delegates did the things that they clearly did.

As for your "charge" that I'm a professional partisan hack, I plead guilty as charged! It is literally my job to help get lefty Democrats elected out here in California. As for your insinuation that I'm a paid Hillary shill, I have to say that's untrue. I'm very much unpaid, though I wish I could get my hands on some of that tasty Goldman Sachs money that's allegedly floating around the internet.

This is why I take such umbrage when Sanders' supporters harass and threaten Democratic officials; those are my people. It is also why it concerns me so greatly that Bernie is going out of his way to portray the Democratic Primary as fundamentally illegitimate. It threatens to do lasting harm to a Party and institution that I've loved and supported for all of my personal, and most of my professional, life. It concerns me greatly that imbeciles like Nap, and you to a lesser extent, have even a modicum of influence in my Party.

I have a personal and professional investment in seeing the Democratic Party succeed in putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. I also have a personal and professional investment in seeing that Donald Trump and the right-wingers in Congress don't take control of the federal government. At this point, I view Bernie's vile attacks on the Democratic Party to be a clear and present danger, and this is a view that many, if not most, people working in politics share. I used to like him back when he was a nameless progressive backbencher, but his quixotic quest for the Democratic nomination fell flat and he's actively hurting the one viable candidate who can stop Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

As for maraxus2, you're a pathetic Clinton shill and its plain for all to see. Bernie already condemned violence as you yourself quoted, and yet you attack him for it. Sure, he could say more, but there is, to my knowledge, zero evidence at all that he orchestrated, condoned, or supports any harassment, threats, or violence. What you want, I dare say, is not his condemnation or disavowment, but his confession. To something their is no evidence of him being responsible for. Because "some Sanders supporters somewhere did something bad" is not the same as "the Sanders campaign is responsible", you worthless, Drumpf-aiding partisan hack.

That you actually have the gaul to criticize Sanders for pointing out violence against his own people, as if its only a bad thing when it happens to Clinton supporters, is just the cherry on the shit sunday that is your brain.

You even say their are no both sides, outright saying that Sanders and his supporters are entirely responsible right after quoting the allegations of violence against them. Have you no shame at all? Do you think Bernie supporters are fair game for gunshots?

And yes, he should sue for libel, because already the vicious lie against his campaign, and the implication that Sanders himself condones terrorism, is taking hold. As your post illustrates.

Lol. I would love to see Sanders sue the Nevada Dems for saying that his Delegates did the things that they clearly did.

As I have posted on in great detail, the claims of violence at the Nevada convention are exaggerated to the point of being outright false.

And again, where is the evidence that Sanders delegates engaged in any violence whatsoever? Show it or shut up.

As for your "charge" that I'm a professional partisan hack, I plead guilty as charged! It is literally my job to help get lefty Democrats elected out here in California. As for your insinuation that I'm a paid Hillary shill, I have to say that's untrue. I'm very much unpaid, though I wish I could get my hands on some of that tasty Goldman Sachs money that's allegedly floating around the internet.

I'll take your word for it, though I'm not sure if its better or worse if you're willing to lie and defame for free.

Although given recent reports of a Clinton super pac hiring paid trolls online, you can see why one might be suspicious.

This is why I take such umbrage when Sanders' supporters harass and threaten Democratic officials; those are my people.

Guess what? So do I. Contrary to what you may think, being a Sanders supporter does not mean that you condone violence.

I just think the charges are likely greatly inflated and dangerously inflammatory, and have yet to see evidence to convince me otherwise.

It is also why it concerns me so greatly that Bernie is going out of his way to portray the Democratic Primary as fundamentally illegitimate.

From what I've seen, he doesn't regard the party as illegitimate. He does regard some of the methods it has used against his campaign as unethical and undemocratic and opposes its use of big corporate money. Which are fair points, on the whole. Criticizing some of the party's methods is not the same as saying the party itself is illegitimate.

It threatens to do lasting harm to a Party and institution that I've loved and supported for all of my personal, and most of my professional, life. It concerns me greatly that imbeciles like Nap, and you to a lesser extent, have even a modicum of influence in my Party.

I've been a Democrat since 2010 and have no intention of changing my affiliation. But has it occurred to you that part of the reason people like us hold such disdain for the party leadership is because people like you and many other Clinton supporters make it perfectly clear that you want us to have no voice whatsoever in the "Democratic" Party?

I want a Democratic party that is strong because it lives up to its name.

I have a personal and professional investment in seeing the Democratic Party succeed in putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. I also have a personal and professional investment in seeing that Donald Trump and the right-wingers in Congress don't take control of the federal government.

One might argue that, given the scandals hanging over Clinton and the numerous polls showing Sanders outperforming her against Drumpf, those are somewhat contradictory goals.

I fully agree with the second one, of course, and as I have said before, will grudgingly back the first to achieve the second if Clinton is the nominee.

At this point, I view Bernie's vile attacks on the Democratic Party to be a clear and present danger, and this is a view that many, if not most, people working in politics share. I used to like him back when he was a nameless progressive backbencher, but his quixotic quest for the Democratic nomination fell flat and he's actively hurting the one viable candidate who can stop Trump.

If Sanders somehow gained the nomination, I am quite confident that he could pose a credible threat to the fascist.

[The Romulan Republic]

You and people like you treat us with contempt, treat us as violent radicals, and in your case at least openly admit that you want Clinton to throw us under the bus and for us to have no voice in the party, and then have the gall to say that we are damaging party unity and helping Drumpf.

I will, in any likely scenario, be voting for Clinton because I feel obligated to do what I can to stop Drumpf the fascist, but its a bitter pill to take when we're being treated by many in the party establishment with open hatred and contempt.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you want to know what I think should happen for unity against the fascist, here it is, at least in part/in brief:

For Sanders:

1. If he has not attained a majority of pledged delegates by June 14th. (the last primary), or if it becomes mathematically impossible for him to do so before then, he should formally conceded the nomination to Hillary Clinton and endorse her for President. I acknowledge that it can take a while for campaigns to wind down, but in this scenario, it should not continue into July, much less to the convention floor.

2. He should issue a further statement denying that his campaign incited or condoned violence, threats, or harassment and refuting any false allegations, but also condemning any such acts by individual supporters.

3. He should once again repudiate Bernie or Bust. He's done so before, of course, but reinforcing the message couldn't hurt.

4. He should avoid attacking Clinton unless she attacks him, and focus his hostility on Donald Trump.

5. In the unlikely event that he is the nominee, he should pick someone who is not a white man as his VP. Normally I'd disdain factoring race or gender into choosing someone for a job, to put it mildly, but given the demographic issues in this primary, I think it would give a lot of people a negative impression if Sanders ran on an all white-male ticket.

Although I may be biased because I really want Tulsi Gabbard as VP.

For Clinton:

1. She should repudiated the Nevada Democrats' lie alleging Sanders' campaign is responsible for violence.

2. She should adopt Sanders' positions on fracking and 15 dollar an hour minimum wage. She isn't that far from both of them, from what I recall of the debates, so its a small concession on two issues where Sanders' position would genuinely be more beneficial for America.

3. She should stop courting big "moderate" Republican donors.

4. She should ask the DNC to allow more Sanders supporters on the convention committees.

5. She should agree to a debate in California, as by prior agreement she and the DNC had agreed to give Sanders one more debate (back when they increased the number of debates to accommodate her desire for one in New Hampshire).

6. She should pick someone who, if not part of the Sanders camp, is at least not actively odious to progressives, as VP. Elizabeth Warren might have been a good choice, but I don't want to give MA's Republican governor a chance to appoint a Senate replacement. Perhaps O'Malley wouldn't be a terrible choice?

7. She should avoid attacking Sanders unless he attacks her, and focus her hostility on Donald Trump.

[Terralthra]

When Sec. Clinton's supporters talk about how Sen. Sanders and his campaign are hurting the party by continuing to attack Sec.Clinton, make comments about electability, are hurting her chances in the general by not dropping out, I take comfort in my memories of 2008, when then-Sen. Clinton and her campaign did basically all of those things through June. Remember when she referenced RFK's assassination as a reason to stay in the race? Almost exactly 8 years ago today. Or how about how she pointed out Sen. Obama's scandals and political issues made her a better candidate? All through May 2008 she made those arguments. Openly encouraging supporters to "pester and cajole" superdelegates to support her? Classic!

Or her supporters talking about how Sen. Clinton shouldn't drop out while no candidate has enough votes to win the nomination, warning:

But as sure as Democrats know all about “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” if you Obama elites keep trying to push Clinton out of this primary race you’re going to end up with a much bigger problem. Clinton’s voters will dig themselves in and protest your undemocratic actions by either staying home or voting for John McCain.

La plus ça change, I guess.

[maraxus2]

The main difference being that Clinton pretty much unconditionally surrendered at the convention, obviating any damage that those attacks might have done to hurt Obama. This is something that Sanders is unlikely to do. Also the economy collapsed and McCain nominated Palin. But otherwise they're exactly the same.

Re: TRR's wank. Was going to respond, but there's not much point.

In other news, a Trump delegate got arrested on child porn, gun, and explosive charges earlier today.

Maryland Trump delegate faces child porn charges
by Associated Press May 19, 2016 1 min read original
BALTMORE — A Maryland Republican Party official says one of the state’s Donald Trump delegates probably won’t go to the national convention following his federal indictment on child pornography, explosives and firearm charges.

U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein in Baltimore announced the indictment of 30-year-old Caleb Bailey on Thursday.

Bailey didn’t return a telephone call. Defense attorney William Brennan says Bailey has pleaded not guilty.

State Republican Party Executive Director Joe Cluster predicts Bailey will resign as one of the 38 Maryland delegates elected last month, and be replaced with an alternate. Otherwise, Cluster says, the state party’s Central Committee will likely vote to remove him.

The indictment says Bailey produced and possessed child pornography, transported explosives without a license, and illegally possessed a machine gun.

link

[Terralthra]

The main difference being that Clinton pretty much unconditionally surrendered at the convention, obviating any damage that those attacks might have done to hurt Obama. This is something that Sanders is unlikely to do. Also the economy collapsed and McCain nominated Palin. But otherwise they're exactly the same.

Sen. Clinton dropped out in early June - before the convention - literally days after Sen. Obama had enough delegates to guarantee nomination, counting superdelegates. Since Sec. Clinton doesn't have that majority, I wouldn't expect Sen. Sanders to drop out until and unless she does. Comparing what Sen. Clinton did 8 years ago and under what conditions to what you think Sen. Sanders might do this year, if the same conditions arise, is hardly a fair comparison. I am simply comparing the actions of two campaigns which are in roughly the same position - behind, highly improbable to win, but not outright ruled out.

Do keep in mind that at this time in 2008, Sen. Obama was further ahead of Sen. Clinton, proportionally speaking.

[maraxus2]

? Further ahead? How do you figure? Also, at this point in the 2008 primary the primaries were actually over. California had already voted (damn you Jerry Brown and your electoral miserliness), for instance.

[The Romulan Republic]

The main difference being that Clinton pretty much unconditionally surrendered at the convention, obviating any damage that those attacks might have done to hurt Obama. This is something that Sanders is unlikely to do. Also the economy collapsed and McCain nominated Palin. But otherwise they're exactly the same.

We'll see about what Sanders does at the convention. Don't judge a man on what he hasn't done yet.

As I said above, if he does not have a majority of pledged delegates after the final primary, he should concede.

I'm a bit undecided on weather he should concede if its mathematically impossible for him to do so before then. I did say that he should, but he has made a point of saying he wants to stay in until every vote has been counted, and I respect that principle.

Still, June 14th. at the latest if he doesn't have a pledged delegate majority.

Re: TRR's wank. Was going to respond, but there's not much point.

Insults, no actual argument and refusal to offer one.

Concession accepted.

[Terralthra]

By this point in the 2008 primary by the point of the Oregon primary on 20 May, Sen. Obama had clinched a pledged delegate majority. Sec. Clinton has not yet clinched a pledged delegate majority; she leads by 274 pledged delegates, and California alone has 475. It's unlikely that Sec. Clinton will lose the remaining primaries to lose her lead, but it's not outright impossible. Mathematically speaking, after Oregon's primary in 2008, there was no chance Sen. Clinton would earn more pledged delegates than Sen. Obama; she would have had to win over 100% of the remaining delegates. Sec. Clinton in this election would have to lose by wide margins for Sen. Sanders to take the lead in pledged delegates, but it's not mathematically impossible, simply highly unlikely.

There were three states left to hold their primaries at this time 8 years ago. They were small, but not non-existent. The primaries weren't "over", they were "almost over."

[maraxus2]

Insults, no actual argument and refusal to offer one.

Concession accepted.

Yes, and for a good reason.

Your reasoning is shit.

By this point in the 2008 primary by the point of the Oregon primary on 20 May, Sen. Obama had clinched a pledged delegate majority. Sec. Clinton has not yet clinched a pledged delegate majority; she leads by 274 pledged delegates, and California alone has 475. It's unlikely that Sec. Clinton will lose the remaining primaries to lose her lead, but it's not outright impossible. Mathematically speaking, after Oregon's primary in 2008, there was no chance Sen. Clinton would earn more pledged delegates than Sen. Obama; she would have had to win over 100% of the remaining delegates. Sec. Clinton in this election would have to lose by wide margins for Sen. Sanders to take the lead in pledged delegates, but it's not mathematically impossible, simply highly unlikely.

[Terralthra]

You're posting shitty memes about unlikely chances, but Sen. Clinton was doing the exact same thing 8 years ago, when she had actually no chance to take a pledged delegate majority (as opposed to a slim chance), and her supporters were threatening to vote for McCain if she was "forced out". This is how primaries tend to go, and hyperventilating about one candidate or another "hurting the party" happens every time too, but it was just as pointless when it was Sen. Obama's supporters in 2008 as it is for Sec. Clinton's supporters now. Tell you what: Sometime in June, I'll meet you for dinner at Chaat Cafe on University Ave. in Berkeley. If Sec. Clinton clinches a delegate majority and with it the nomination and Sen. Sanders doesn't concede by the convention, it's my treat. If he does concede at such time as Clinton clinches the nomination in effective majority of delegates (as Sen. Clinton conceded in early June, 2008 when Sen. Obama did likewise), your treat. Deal?

[Mr Bean]

Yes there's exactly three chances for Senator Bernie Sanders to secure the nomination they are in order of probability.

1. Indictment, the FBI indicted comes down now Secretary Clinton rather than an hour after the convention ends.

2. Those heath rumors we've been hearing off again off again for Secretary Clinton come true and she is significantly disabled enough/drops dead to where she has to withdraw her campaign. Note this is true of both of them but to be blunt Secretary Clinton's had a few more issues over the years heath wise.

3. Senator Sanders secures, at this point I believe it's 66% of the last of the pledged delegates to end up with a pledged delegate lead. Not impossible but unlikely particularly if it's a low turnout election in the last half dozen states and it's massive majority Sanders. Then at the end of the day Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates (By a few handfuls) but Secretary Clinton already has enough Super delegates to secure the nomination. The chances of Senator Sanders securing the 94% of remaining pledged delegates we can all agree is impossible short of Genie Wish but if the numbers trend in his favor and he ends up with even ONE delegate above Sectary Clinton stand by for 1968.

*Edit
Note, all Bernie has to do to force an official floor vote is not lose by more than fifteen points. He has to beat Secretary Clinton by at least 15 points to get ahead of her. She has to do the same to secure the nomination. If Secretary Clinton gets 60% of the votes remaining it has to be a Superdelegate push.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, since our local Clintonite troll isn't even bothering to really debate any more, and is literally just posting memes, insults, and one-liners, there's not much more to say.

I would like to ask Mr. Bean to clarify something, however:

You say an indictment would only help Sanders if it came before the end of the convention. Maybe so, but it raises an interesting point:

What the hell would happen if, hypothetically, an indictment came after? Would Clinton actually run under indictment? Or would she step down?

And if, for any reason, a candidate gains the nomination but is then unable to run, what is the procedure for replacing them on the ticket? There must be one, but I don't know what it is. Do they hold an emergency second convention? Give it to the VP? Give it to the runner-up in the primary (i.e. Sanders, in this scenario)?

[maraxus2]

You're posting shitty memes about unlikely chances, but Sen. Clinton was doing the exact same thing 8 years ago, when she had actually no chance to take a pledged delegate majority (as opposed to a slim chance), and her supporters were threatening to vote for McCain if she was "forced out". This is how primaries tend to go, and hyperventilating about one candidate or another "hurting the party" happens every time too, but it was just as pointless when it was Sen. Obama's supporters in 2008 as it is for Sec. Clinton's supporters now. Tell you what: Sometime in June, I'll meet you for dinner at Chaat Cafe on University Ave. in Berkeley. If Sec. Clinton clinches a delegate majority and with it the nomination and Sen. Sanders doesn't concede by the convention, it's my treat. If he does concede at such time as Clinton clinches the nomination in effective majority of delegates (as Sen. Clinton conceded in early June, 2008 when Sen. Obama did likewise), your treat. Deal?

Me posting shitty memes about unlikely chances is meant to ridicule you and TRR's pollyannish views on the math in this election. TRR in particular has gone balls-deep into the "DONT SAY HE HAS NO CHANCE THERES A CHANCE GODDAMNIT" line of thinking. There's virtually no chance he'll win.

And Nah. I'm not big on meeting people from message boards IRL.

Yes there's exactly three chances for Senator Bernie Sanders to secure the nomination they are in order of probability.

1. Indictment, the FBI indicted comes down now Secretary Clinton rather than an hour after the convention ends.

Unlikely.

2. Those heath rumors we've been hearing off again off again for Secretary Clinton come true and she is significantly disabled enough/drops dead to where she has to withdraw her campaign. Note this is true of both of them but to be blunt Secretary Clinton's had a few more issues over the years heath wise.

Also unlikely. Her campaign schedule makes my bones hurt just to look at it.

3. Senator Sanders secures, at this point I believe it's 65% of the remains pledged delegates to end up with a pledged delegate lead. Not impossible but unlikely particularly if it's a low turnout election in the last half dozen states and it's massive majority Sanders. Then at the end of the day Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates (By a few handfuls) but Secretary Clinton already has enough Super delegates to secure the nomination. The chances of Senator Sanders securing the 94% of remaining pledged delegates we can all agree is impossible short of Genie Wish but if the numbers trend in his favor and he ends up with even ONE delegate above Sectary Clinton stand by for 1968.

Also unlikely, considering that the last states are CA, NJ and DC, which are all demographically stacked against him. And the polling numbers are currently trending away from him on the national level. And given the shit he's pulled in the last week, I'd be surprised if any of the Supes were thinking of switching to him, even if Clinton turned out to be literally Satan.

[maraxus2]

Well, since our local Clintonite troll isn't even bothering to really debate any more, and is literally just posting memes, insults, and one-liners, there's not much more to say.

You say there's not more to say, yet you somehow have more to say. This befuddles me. And it's not that I don't want to debate any longer. It's just you, sweet pea.

[Terralthra]

You're posting shitty memes about unlikely chances, but Sen. Clinton was doing the exact same thing 8 years ago, when she had actually no chance to take a pledged delegate majority (as opposed to a slim chance), and her supporters were threatening to vote for McCain if she was "forced out". This is how primaries tend to go, and hyperventilating about one candidate or another "hurting the party" happens every time too, but it was just as pointless when it was Sen. Obama's supporters in 2008 as it is for Sec. Clinton's supporters now. Tell you what: Sometime in June, I'll meet you for dinner at Chaat Cafe on University Ave. in Berkeley. If Sec. Clinton clinches a delegate majority and with it the nomination and Sen. Sanders doesn't concede by the convention, it's my treat. If he does concede at such time as Clinton clinches the nomination in effective majority of delegates (as Sen. Clinton conceded in early June, 2008 when Sen. Obama did likewise), your treat. Deal?

Me posting shitty memes about unlikely chances is meant to ridicule you and TRR's pollyannish views on the math in this election. TRR in particular has gone balls-deep into the "DONT SAY HE HAS NO CHANCE THERES A CHANCE GODDAMNIT" line of thinking. There's virtually no chance he'll win.

I don't think he will win, I just wish he would. It was nice to be on a streak of two elections in a row where I got to vote for the winner that it will be sad to break that streak, as I will if he is not the nominee.

And Nah. I'm not big on meeting people from message boards IRL.

Fair enough. Offer stands, if you change your mind.

[Mr Bean]

You say an indictment would only help Sanders if it came before the end of the convention. Maybe so, but it raises an interesting point:

What the hell would happen if, hypothetically, an indictment came after? Would Clinton actually run under indictment? Or would she step down?

And if, for any reason, a candidate gains the nomination but is then unable to run, what is the procedure for replacing them on the ticket? There must be one, but I don't know what it is. Do they hold an emergency second convention? Give it to the VP? Give it to the runner-up in the primary (i.e. Sanders, in this scenario)?

The What ifs were talked about back during McCain's run because the heath thing came up then as well. It's acutally up to the parties and is not part of the constitution. Slate has a piece about it here but in essence if Clinton is indicted they can not replace here since those by laws are designed around death of the person running not being indicted. Unless she steps down State laws about who can be put on the ballot will force the Democrats to run a write in campaign. Or they can keep it as is and give it to the VP. Both unlikely to work for obvious Trump related reasons.

Either way it will be an unholy mess and you can trust that the 30+ Republican governors won't be in a hurry to change their laws to accomdate the Democratic Party nor will that matter several of the Democratic governors like Earl Ray Tomblin or Tom Wolf both of which face the problem that they are out numbered in there own state. Since that power dynamic only goes one way, the brave governor standing up against the corrupt Democratic Party who ran a traitor! as their nominee, in states with Republican governors but Democratic houses they can't over rule their governor or risk being tainted by the scandal and in the places with Republican Houses the Democrat for the same reason has to go along or risk being removed.

At the end of the day even if indicted Secretary Clinton would not be jailed until after the trial which at quickest is months away thanks to the current lack of judges and nutty court scheduling laws.

[The Romulan Republic]

So they can't force her out, but that doesn't really answer the question of weather she'd step down and what would happen if she did.

If she, or any other candidate, dropped out half-way through the general election, what happens then? I haven't yet found any information on the subject.

[Dominus Atheos]

Snopes debunks the claim that Sanders supporters "threw chairs":

WHAT'S TRUE: Video captured during the Nevada Democrats' convention depicts a man briefly picking up a chair before placing it back down without throwing it.

WHAT'S FALSE: Despite extensive YouTube, Periscope, and photographic documentation captured by supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, no available images document anyone's throwing chairs at the Nevada convention.

http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-suppo ... onvention/

Full NPR writeup:

NPR's use of the word "violence" and claims of thrown chairs in recent stories about Saturday's Nevada Democratic Party state convention have come under criticism by supporters of candidate Bernie Sanders.

Listener Ya'akov Sloman, of Mishawaka, Ind., writes:

"In the aftermath of the convention a single report of 'throwing chairs and rushing the stage' by an openly partisan 'journalist' became the story for every major news outlet. In particular, the dramatic image of 'throwing chairs' seemed to strike reporters as great stuff; so it was repeated.
As far as my extensive research can determine (and I am still looking) there is no other evidence of 'thrown chairs'. This one counterfactual account changes the tone of stories containing it dramatically. If it did not happen, claims of 'violence' which depend on it are simply not sustainable."
A number of listeners and readers have written with similar concerns (not all so polite). The reports they are concerned about include this one from today's Morning Edition, with the headline, "Nevada Incident Could Make It Difficult For Sanders' Supporters To Back Clinton" and yesterday's online-only story, "Bernie Sanders Defends Supporters After Rowdy Protests In Nevada."

The online story, citing the source of the claims, reported:

"But chaos followed after Sanders supporters allege they were denied being seated at the convention and that the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, was slanting the rules in favor of Clinton. In the end, Clinton ended up with 20 delegates out of the state to Sanders' 15.
Sanders supporters, believing they had been treated unfairly, rushed the stage, threw chairs and were shouting obscenities, according to veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralston. Even after the convention concluded, many refused to leave and had to be escorted out by security."
As Sloman notes, other outlets, including The Associated Press, also reported that chairs were thrown. While I have no reason to doubt that reporting, in the extensive video posted on social media in the aftermath of the convention I've so far found none of a chair being thrown. One video shows a chair being lifted in the air. Other videos do show angry Sanders supporters rushing toward the stage and shouting obscenities.

Talking Points Memo this afternoon tried to get to the bottom of what happened and the report was inconclusive: "There has been disagreement between Sanders supporters and those critical of their behavior Saturday over how violent the state convention actually was, and who is to blame. Descriptions of the day's events recount shouting, interruptions, crude names and epithets being lobbed at party officials, and an evening that culminated in a group of Sanders backers rushing towards the stage and even flipping chairs. Only some of those incidents could be backed up by video evidence posted by those at Saturday's convention and other reports."

I asked Beth Donovan, NPR's senior Washington editor, to respond to the concerns. She wrote, "Several members of our staff watched live video that showed a man brandishing a chair. Nevada analyst Jon Ralston, who was in the room and over time has been a very reliable source, reported that a chair was thrown. We okayed using and sourcing his reporting." But, she added, "When Ralston's reporting came under question, we adjusted our language," by not repeating the word "thrown." Instead, Keith's report this morning referred to "physical skirmishes." (It also quoted Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as referring to "violence," which he did, indeed, do.)

Donovan went on, "So, was there violence? There was pushing, shoving, and screaming, a chair was brandished and a great deal of hostile and obscene language used. Several editors and reporters saw and heard the video live and later. People on the ground described it as violence. It doesn't seem a stretch to me."

Donovan and I disagree on this; "violence," which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence I have seen so far. And the politics team's own decision to avoid the word "thrown" renders this online-only introduction to Keith's piece misleading, unless other eyewitnesses come forward to clarify the events: "Sen. Bernie Sanders is answering for violence at the Nevada Democratic Party's state convention, where his supporters threw chairs and hurled obscenities as Hillary Clinton claimed the most delegates."

One final note: I do not agree with those who emailed that this reporting is evidence of an NPR bias against Sanders, a claim which many, many listeners and readers have been making to me and online over the course of months. But that is only all the more reason for NPR to be particularly precise in reporting on events such as these.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2 ... s-violence

So no chair throwing and besides some pushing and shoving, no violence.

[Mr Bean]

So they can't force her out, but that doesn't really answer the question of weather she'd step down and what would happen if she did.

If she, or any other candidate, dropped out half-way through the general election, what happens then? I haven't yet found any information on the subject.

The only law and I do mean the only law is the ones governing each state (And yes there are fifty different versions) that state the date the party has to present it's nominee to get them on the official ballot. That means it's up to the parties to decide how they will pick the nominee, in theory if Secretary Clinton steps down for whatever reasons before the ballot deadline passes in enough state the party can simply get together the delegates and have another vote in a particularly Denny's in New Mexico if they like. Technically speaking they can even change the rules at will with a simple rules committee meeting and a delegate vote. None of what the National Democratic Party does (Or the Republican by that matter) is covered by US law except on the edges. If either party so wished they could have the issue of who their party is decided any way they like even if they so wished they could pick at the WWE SUMMER SLAM August 21st at the Barclays Center in NY.

Seriously there's no law that says the Democratic Party nominee for President can't be decided by a sixteen man royal rumble falls count anywhere no DQ match. The primaries are there for your enjoyment not because they are required to do so by Federal law.