Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:02 AM Mar 2016

Clinton wins by losing

Despite Sanders’ close Michigan win, he won’t see any real gains in delegates for the night.

With 130 Michigan delegates at stake, Sanders will win at least 63 and Clinton at least 52. His gains will be canceled out by Clinton’s earlier win in Mississippi. She already entered the night with a 196-delegate lead over Sanders based on primaries and caucuses alone.

Democrats award delegates in proportion to the vote, so Clinton was able to add a good chunk of delegates even after losing Michigan.

Including superdelegates, her lead becomes even bigger — at least 1,214 to Sanders’ 566. It takes 2,383 to win the nomination.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/09/election-news-guide/81518600/
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton wins by losing (Original Post) SecularMotion Mar 2016 OP
Excellent news! NurseJackie Mar 2016 #1
The Oligarchy is still nervous. They hate an activated populace. rhett o rick Mar 2016 #10
Clinton won by winning big. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #2
it was not a champagne-popper night, but it also was not a reason for concern DrDan Mar 2016 #3
You are aware that independents are allowed to vote in the general election Bettie Mar 2016 #5
ridiculous - of course they can vote in the GE - but a party's candidate should be selected DrDan Mar 2016 #16
Party members tend Bettie Mar 2016 #20
Independents... TTUBatfan2008 Mar 2016 #9
they can vote in the GE - why should they decide who will represent a particular party DrDan Mar 2016 #17
Agreed ... in more ways than one. I'll leave it at that ... NurseJackie Mar 2016 #13
It's all about momentum at this point. EmperorHasNoClothes Mar 2016 #4
So you're using extrapolation to predict the future? Isn't that part of what polling does? randome Mar 2016 #6
Not by one win. EmperorHasNoClothes Mar 2016 #7
Even then he isn't catching up. He's further behind as of yesterday. randome Mar 2016 #12
Actually, I'm using Nate Silver's numbers. EmperorHasNoClothes Mar 2016 #15
Aren't you ignoring the states where he was correct? randome Mar 2016 #18
you can post as many of these as you want, but it doesnt change the truth restorefreedom Mar 2016 #8
Clinton has been hanging on for a year. Our momentum is continuing to grow. We rhett o rick Mar 2016 #11
"Including superdelegates" Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #14
No reason to worry! Mufaddal Mar 2016 #19
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
10. The Oligarchy is still nervous. They hate an activated populace.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:02 AM
Mar 2016

If you are happy with the status quo, vote for the Goldman-Sachs candidate, if you want to help those left behind while the Oligarchy reaped trillions in profits, vote Sen Sanders. Don't side with the 01%, they don't really love you, they want our resources.

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
3. it was not a champagne-popper night, but it also was not a reason for concern
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:17 AM
Mar 2016

open primaries just do not make sense to me - why let other-than-D's cast a vote for the Dem candidate?

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
5. You are aware that independents are allowed to vote in the general election
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:51 AM
Mar 2016

right?

Or do you want the general to be open only to the people who are identified with one of the two major parties?

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
16. ridiculous - of course they can vote in the GE - but a party's candidate should be selected
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:57 AM
Mar 2016

by the party members.

And I have no issue with a non-D pursuing a candidacy - let the party members decide who they want to represent them.

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
20. Party members tend
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

to have blind spots.

I definitely do. I'm sure you do as well.

Independents give us a better read on what works for a larger population than just the small percentage of people who actually belong to the party.

The ability to pull unaffiliated voters to our side, versus the other side is important.

I suppose, to keep unaffiliated voters from helping to choose the D candidate, we could go back to an older method where the candidate is chosen by the party leadership instead of voting. Otherwise, in states with open primaries, there will be independents voting.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
9. Independents...
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:00 AM
Mar 2016

...are over 40% of the national electorate. Doesn't sound smart to ban them from primaries.

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
17. they can vote in the GE - why should they decide who will represent a particular party
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:58 AM
Mar 2016

that should be left up to the members of that party

it is their decision not to join a party - but when doing so, they do not get the rights of party membership.

EmperorHasNoClothes

(4,797 posts)
4. It's all about momentum at this point.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:36 AM
Mar 2016

Sanders has outperformed the polls in the states he has won so far by about 14%. If he maintains that kind of performance, he will pass her in pledged delegates in June.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
6. So you're using extrapolation to predict the future? Isn't that part of what polling does?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:55 AM
Mar 2016

Obviously the polling was way off in Michigan but that doesn't mean they all are. A 'methodology' of judging the future by one win isn't likely to be justified. (Just keeping it real.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
12. Even then he isn't catching up. He's further behind as of yesterday.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:12 AM
Mar 2016

Are you saying he will outperform every single poll from now until the nomination? Maybe so but I still don't see it happening. And the polling will start taking into consideration that he's doing better than expected, which means they will become more accurate. Nate Silver has been more accurate than not so I'd still put my money on methodology rather than wishing.

Anything is possible, of course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

EmperorHasNoClothes

(4,797 posts)
15. Actually, I'm using Nate Silver's numbers.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:22 AM
Mar 2016

He hasn't been very accurate at all - off by an average of 9% in one direction or another.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
18. Aren't you ignoring the states where he was correct?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:10 AM
Mar 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
8. you can post as many of these as you want, but it doesnt change the truth
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:59 AM
Mar 2016

760 to 546 pledged delegates. supers will support the winner

lots of states and delegates left, many favorable,to bernie. hillarys best states are mostly behind her.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
11. Clinton has been hanging on for a year. Our momentum is continuing to grow. We
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:05 AM
Mar 2016

are making the Oligarchy nervous. Choose the side that backs the people and not Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton wins by losing