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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gabeana

(3,166 posts)
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:22 PM Apr 2016

Clinton's lead without super delegates

is 1243-980 (also need to take away Bernie's super delegates)
an honest question without the super delegates is this close or is this un-surmountable difference?
Please no snark just asking does this make it realistic he could catch up with delegates that come through the primary and caucus system. If so then why should he drop out, i wouldn't worry about the super delegates until the convention.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

From this link I have no idea if Nevada has been updates

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton's lead without super delegates (Original Post) gabeana Apr 2016 OP
No.... daleanime Apr 2016 #1
Unsurmountable? nt onehandle Apr 2016 #2
Maybe. However, it is not insurmountable. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #6
It will take huge wins in states like NY and CA for him to have a chance Lucinda Apr 2016 #3
That is what I was trying to figure out gabeana Apr 2016 #4
This link only covers up through March 6 but you can see the differences in votes Lucinda Apr 2016 #8
Thanks for the information n/t gabeana Apr 2016 #9
It's surmountable, but difficult Onlooker Apr 2016 #5
First of all, he's at about 1012 pledged delegates. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #7
His odds of winning are much better than 99 to one Cowpunk Apr 2016 #10

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
3. It will take huge wins in states like NY and CA for him to have a chance
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:28 PM
Apr 2016

It is possible but not probable. Her lead is larger than the lead Obama ever held during the 08 elections, and she just couldn't catch up. The same scenario will likely play out this time, with Bernie in Hillary's 08 position.

gabeana

(3,166 posts)
4. That is what I was trying to figure out
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:31 PM
Apr 2016

because if I remember right she won some big states late in the game like PA. and CA.
but was Obama's lead smaller because she had a lot of super delegates?

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
8. This link only covers up through March 6 but you can see the differences in votes
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:45 PM
Apr 2016

between 08 and 16 elections to that point. Clinton is just doing better this time around and has larger numbers than Obama did in 08. I'm not sure how long everyone else was in 08 election, Edwards and whoever else was in then, pulled some of the numbers that are being split just between Bernie and Hillary now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/5/1496804/-Comparing-Delegate-count-between-2016-and-2008

Obama had done a lot of super delegate work in 08, was ahead in primary and caucus delegates, and that added with the problems with Michigan and Florida jumping ahead, gave him the win. Hillary is estimated to have had more votes total, but it was the delegate numbers that decided the election, as it always is.

As it stands right now, Hillary has a huge lead in both regular delegates and super delegates. Unless something shifts dramatically, and Sanders wins huge blowouts in state after state, there isn't any way for him to make up the difference. They will both add to their current numbers as each state votes.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
5. It's surmountable, but difficult
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:36 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie will need to do very well to catch up, so he's a long shot, but he's certainly not out of the running. If he scores a few upsets and the momentum shifts more strongly towards him, anything is possible. Here's an objective but discouraging look at the challenge Bernie faces if he wants to have a majority of elected delegates:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
7. First of all, he's at about 1012 pledged delegates.
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:39 PM
Apr 2016

The 980 doesn't include the Washington delegates yet to be "officially" awarded through the county and state convention processes.

To win a majority of PLEDGED delegates, Sanders must win 56-57% of the delegates henceforth.

Cowpunk

(719 posts)
10. His odds of winning are much better than 99 to one
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 07:28 PM
Apr 2016

...which is the chance given to him by the "experts" of winning the state of Michigan, which he did.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton's lead without su...