to proceed.

And every bird will be equal to 1000 super-delegates, so Bernie wins!!1111111

That is wrong on its face, but I have seen him misquoted often.

You know he means the number required to get the nomination. And it looks like neither candidate will have scored that number in pledged delegates alone before the convention.

But let them go on, it's a bit entertaining.

Weaver point is that neither campaign is going to the convention with enough PLEDGED for majority. Thus they will need the unpledged delegates to win and these people can change their mind during the convention, and that is what he is alluding to in terms of contested convention.

Convention.

DUH!

Is the threshold required for the nomination. To say that neither will have the majority is inaccurate and fudges the political importance of having the majority of pledged delegates going into the convention. Tad is trying to negate the importance of a majority because he doesn't think his campaign is going to achieve it.

They are trying to sell the notion of heads up polling versus the GOP, which they are free to do but is unlikely to be persuasive enough to win enough supers.

These were the rules when Hillary threw her hat in the ring.

If she or her supporters have a problem with the rules, well what can I say?

To win enough superdelegates even if Hillary ends up with more pledged delegates than Bernie. TAD is making the case to usurp the nomination via superdelegates regardless of whether pledged and popular are in Hillary's favor.

....should vote with the will of the people of their states.

If Clinton has "more" (I'll stay away from using majority, even though Jeff did this morning) pledged delegates than Sanders, then it would be obvious that she'll wind up with more superdelegates than Sanders.

This isn't even math, it's simple deductive reasoning and logic:

If A is greater than B, and C is divided in proportion to the size of A and B, then A + >50% of C will STILL be greater than B + <50% of C.

I think Jeff should go back to selling comic books, it's a lot simpler than running a slipshod presidential campaign and Tad should rethink the way he helped set up the Democratic Party supedelegate scheme years ago.

I thought she was going to pop a blood vessel.

So much for professionalism.

Not Necessarily true

"Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.[4] Another difference between pledged PLEOs and unpledged PLEOs is that there is a fixed number of pledged PLEO slots for each state, while the number of unpledged PLEOs can change during the campaign. Pledged PLEO delegates are not generally considered superdelegates."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

For more details on Delegate types and breakdown by state see:
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html

...of status of the delegate due death, resignation from office, mid-year election, etc.

By the way, in 2008 Senator Joseph Lieberman, who won election under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party, was not a superdelegate, so the status of Bernie Sanders as a superdelegate may still be up in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

I suspect someone else at St. Bern HQ is in charge of the math.