The pledged won’t be counted, EVER, unless neither side gets 60% of the
pledged delegates. At that point, the supers decide, based on the "good
of the party, "
Patently false.
There are 4765 delegates.
The candidate who receives 2383 (50% plus one) delegates will be the nominee.
It doesn’t matter if they’re pledged or super—a delegate is a delegate is a delegate.
You are absolutely correct. My math was wrong.
The super delegate vote only matters if neither side gets 58.8249814860528% of the pledged delegates (give or take, that being 2383/4051), not if neither side gets 60% of the pledged delegates.
Eh, the caucus allows people to change their mind over the next few weeks, which is partly (I believe) why Sanders is actually picking up delegates before the 3rd and final round.
the drawback of the caucus is that it only allows people with lots of time on their hand to participate.
On the other other hand, when you have primary lines that last all day, its no different than being in a caucus, except you don’t get to sit down out of the rain.
Repeating the same idiocy doesn’t make it any more connected to facts or reality. I already posted what the math is. That you somehow think superdelegates only get counted if pledged delegates don’t reach a magic number only shows you really and truly don’t know what you are talking about.
Thanks. I just remembered reading this at NY Times, and wondered if they had voiced their opinion about this contested convention talk now that the outcome of the primaries is clear.
Repeating the same idiocy doesn’t make it any more connected to facts or
reality. I already posted what the math is. That you somehow think
superdelegate a only get counted if pledged delegates don’t reach a
magic number only shows you really and truly don’t know what you are
talking about.
Sigh, if teh pledged delegates for a specific candidate reach 2,383, the supers don’t matter. If they don’t reach 2,383, then the supers’ vote counts, and they vote “for the good of the party.”
at this point, one national poll (which doth not a trend make) suggests that Clinton would lose against Trump, and such polls in favor of either candidate, would factor into who the supers would pick:
Obviously, if Clinton has a vast majority of pledged delegates, but still shy of 2,383, then the supers would go with her automatically. However, if the race is a near-tie, then other factors become more important. According to the Communications Officer of the DNC, the supers should not be counted by ANYONE until the convention as they can and do change their minds. However, that same official says that the supers have never actually decided the nomination before:
Saijanai… For a candidate to win a majority of the pledged delegates they only need 2026, then the super delegates “don’t matter” as the candidate has reached 50%+1 of the pledged delegates, and the supers have never gone against the will of the party as a whole before so why the hell do you think they’d do that now… And in Sander’s favor?
The threshold of 2383 is INCLUDING the super delegates not a bulwark number that must be met before Supers count.
There was an article in the new York times I believe about the Reddit Donald Trump page and the main moderator said the most popular articles were anti Hillary ones because both Sanders and Trump supporters loved those ones.
While there is little in common in Bernie and Trumps positions, there’s a lot in common in their political stole of resentment and making promises they obviously cannot fulfill.
What the hell is wrong with this man?? Does he want to just rip apart the party?? I’m sorry, I used to have respect for him, admired his campaign and the issues he brought a spotlight to. At one point I was considering to vote for him (as I’m in California I have yet to cast a primary ballot). Those days are long long gone now. Anyone in one of the state’s or territories yet to vote should do the Democratic Party a favor and vote against this kind of thinking. It’s like he wants to be a gadfly just to be an irritant to the party. Even if the “establishment” adopted everything he wanted I have the distinct feeling he still would be raging against the party.
In this interview he talks about how super delegates in states he’s won should flip to him and honor the “will of the people.” But then for some reason the super delagates in states Hillary has won should still disregard their state’s voters and vote for him instead because he thinks he’s a better candidate in the fall?? Well I’m sorry he should do the same thing he’s preaching to super delegates in the states he’s won and listen to the will of the voters. Even if we allocated the super delegates of each state to the winner of that state Bernie would still loose and if we allocated supers proportionally just as we do with the pledged delegates we’d be left with results that proportion wise match today’s pledged delegate percentages, with Bernie having something like 11% fewer delagates.
And to top it all off he’s ranting about a “rigged” election process, now though it’s not the super delegates he’s complaining about (since he now is relying on them for his proposed “conceivable” pathway to the nomination), it’s closed primaries. I’m sorry but he made a lot more sense when he was raging against this group of “establishment” elites with power to disregard the entire primary process and crown a winner than when complaining about state parties that simply require you to be an actual member of that party to select that party’s nominee (the only quibble i think is legitimate here is New Yorks ridiculous requirements to change registration months and months in advance). The sad truth is if you want to influence and shape a party you should actually take a stand and become a member of that party! In my mind that’s a much more effective model then the vision it appears sanders embraces where you should stay out of the party and complain. A national party is naturally a big tent coalition of people and movements and ideas, I get that Bernie may be unhappy with some of the party’s or its candidates ideas and proposals or their unwillingness in his eyes to go far enough but parties can and do change to reflect the sentiment of its membership (see the Democratic Party and gay marriage relatively recently), but to get that change in the party you have to fully embrace and commit to the party and push it to look more like the party you envision, you have a chance to succeed if you bring about untold numbers of fellow believers into the party fold… This is all not to say I think all primaries should be closed, it’s just that I think far from being “undemocratic” there is definite arguments for a “closed system” (just as there are arguments for an open primary system). The far more undemocratic system and process though, is the entire concept of the “caucus”, which just happens to be a format Bernie performs well in (so we don’t hear him ranting against them at all). Like i mentioned earlier, I at one time truely did admire The Sanders Campaign, mostly because I thought it was a campaign that appeared full of idealistic integrity. That cannot be said about the sanders campaign of today. A better word today would be “sanctimonious.” A campaign that still thinks and preaches itself as some sort of moral superior to all other presidential campaigns, that’s fighting to make the primary more responsive to the People, of building a “revolution” from the “bottom up” with millions of voiceless citizens. But in practice all its preaching about giving a voice to “the people” is thrown out the window in favor of finding “the people” who are, in Bernie’s view, simply voting the right way.
Rachel Maddow did this takedown last night about the “contested convention” thingy (from 9:45-ish). I know even that won’t clarify a thing for some people, but hopefully more people see how nutty and absurd Sanders’s claims are.
You DO understand that 58.8249814860528% of the total pledged delegates is 2,383, which is the number required to win, right?
If the candidates reach 2,383 with pledged delegates, then the number of supers supporting them is irrelevant. If they don’t reach 2,383 pledged delegates, then the supers matter.
According to the Communications Officer of the Democratic National Committee, there has never been a need for super delegates to vote since 1984 and that they shouldn’t be counted before the convention because they can and often do change their vote:
there are 4,051 (from memory) pledged delegates. One needs 2,383 delegates of any type to win.
2,383/4,051 = 58.8249814860528%
So one needs 58.8249814860528% of the pledged delegates to win outright. If no candidate gets 58.8249814860528% of the pledged delegates, teh super delegates step in and vote.
According to the Communications officer of the Democratic National Committee, super delegates have not needed to vote since they were created in 1984:
What Bernie Sanders is claiming is that neither he nor Clinton will get 2,383 (or 58.8249814860528%
) pledged delegates, and therefore, BY DEFINITION, the convention will be “brokered” (the official term for a contested-ish convention in DNC-speak).
The brokering is taking place as we speak. Sanders’ press conference is part of that brokering.
It is not true that any candidate must win with only pledged delegates. Nowhere in the DNC convention rules is there any such statement.
The convention will not be brokered, because Hillary will have enough total delegates to win the nomination.
You are continuing to misunderstand both what I am saying and what a brokered conventino is.
By difintion, if no candidate gets 2,383 pledged candidates the supers decide who wins.
This is called a brokered convention in DNC-speak:
Under the Democratic National Convention rules, "A majority vote of the Convention’s delegates shall be required
to nominate the presidential candidate" and "Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected".[7]
The role of the superdelegates was established in-part to limit such conflicts and multi-rounds of voting on the convention floor, and instead allow the candidates to woo these delegates before the convention.[8]
Whether or not the voting will take mre than one round will be played out at the convention. I suspect that only one round will be needed, but the party leadership may allow a 2nd round as a show of democracy for bernie supporters.
