2016 Postmortem

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts) Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:53 PM Apr 2016

KING: Calls for Bernie Sanders to drop out after New York primary are just foolishness

Until Tuesday’s New York primary, Bernie Sanders had won seven states in a row (Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) dating all the way back to March 22. Hillary then won her (latest) home state, where she was last elected and had a strong ground operation in place, and now people are saying it's time for Bernie Sanders to drop out? Bernie has won seven out of eight states, but he should drop out?

Foolishness!

Bernie actually lost New York by a slightly smaller margin than President Obama did in his New York primary against Hillary in 2008. President Obama lost New York by a margin of 57-40%. Last night, Bernie lost 58-42%.

Beyond that, as I explained in great detail on Monday, it's highly unlikely, almost impossible actually, for either Hillary or Bernie to sew up the nomination before the convention.

(snip)

We have 19 primaries and caucuses remaining — many of them with far more progressive and fair voting laws in place than New York. While Bernie Sanders is running as a Democratic candidate, a strong percentage of his supporters don't identify with any party. Many of the upcoming states have open primaries that allow such voting. People should be able to vote in whichever primary they want for whatever candidate they prefer. I'm not saying he would've won New York with less restrictive laws in place, but it certainly would've been a lot closer.

(snip)

I'm sure that the Clinton campaign wants this to end. It's a real fight, but that's just not going to happen — and it shouldn't.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-calls-bernie-sanders-drop-foolishness-article-1.2608585

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

KING: Calls for Bernie Sanders to drop out after New York primary are just foolishness (Original Post) Uncle Joe Apr 2016 OP

Clinton will easily wrap up the nomination by June 8. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #1

Until the rest of nation has actually voted we don't know which candidate will have a Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #3

I can go along with that, because you're in agreement with the simple geek tragedy Apr 2016 #4

I don't see where King is arguing the point that you are raising? Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #5

this: geek tragedy Apr 2016 #6

King is just stating the Democratic Party rules. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #7

he's stating that the superdelegates will DETERMINE the winner. That is factually false. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #10

I agree 2026 is the number to reach a simple majority of pledged delegates but per the Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #12

in 2008, would you say it was (A) superdelegates or (B) primary voters geek tragedy Apr 2016 #13

You're arguing that the Democratic Party rules is a rigged system. 2008 was an unusual Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #16

I would certainly not argue with doing away with them geek tragedy Apr 2016 #19

If we're going to have super-delegates, I wouldn't eliminate Mayors of small towns. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #21

We need to have fewer superdelegates, which is why I would limit it. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #23

The only problem being in politics, "Trumpian emergency" can be in the eye of the beholder, (s) Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #25

It's not a standard, it is just the rules. morningfog Apr 2016 #15

saying the superdelegates will determine the winner misrepresents geek tragedy Apr 2016 #17

IF Bernie takes it to the convention, the supers decide it. morningfog Apr 2016 #18

no, that's factually false. If they don't intervene to change the outcome geek tragedy Apr 2016 #20

If they didn't intervene, abstaining from the vote, morningfog Apr 2016 #22

their behavior would still be determined by voters, they wouldn't be exercising independent agency geek tragedy Apr 2016 #28

It's time for Bernie to end this scam. FarPoint Apr 2016 #27

The math dictates that without superdelegates she probably won't. The rest is up to the convention. highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #2

I feel the same way, highprincipleswork. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #8

Glad to be together with you. As he says, if we all just stand together... highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #9

+1 Zira Apr 2016 #26

I hope he stays in till the end in case something happens with these emails or anything else. hollowdweller Apr 2016 #11

yep Bernie needs to stay in azurnoir Apr 2016 #14

Absolutely! In it to the end, my friends! GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 #24

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

1. Clinton will easily wrap up the nomination by June 8.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:56 PM

Apr 2016

MATH.

P.S. this dumpster fire logic that she needs to win a supermajority of pledged delegates is horseshit. That's not the standard Obama was held to. He was only required to win a simple majority of pledged delegates. And that's the standard that applies in 2016, despite the protestations of those living inside the BernieBubble.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

3. Until the rest of nation has actually voted we don't know which candidate will have a

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:02 PM

Apr 2016

simple majority of delegates.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

4. I can go along with that, because you're in agreement with the simple

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:10 PM

Apr 2016

majority (2026) of elected delegates.

King is saying Clinton needs to win 2383 of pledged delegates (59%) in order to legitimately claim the nomination.

For reference, Obama won 50.3% of the pledged delegates in 2008.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

5. I don't see where King is arguing the point that you are raising?

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:19 PM

Apr 2016

(snip)

Now, no matter who wins the delegate-rich primary in New York, it's literally impossible that either candidate could secure the nomination before June 7, when 694 delegates will be won between six different states — including California, which has 475 all by itself. After that, only D.C. is left on June 14.

Barring something historically strange, my sincere guess is that after D.C. votes, neither candidate will have 2,384 delegates. They each will likely be several hundred delegates away.

At that point, the super-delegates are going to decide who gets the nomination.

Since this is all about delegates and not the popular vote, if Bernie has more delegates entering the convention, will they still vote for Hillary? What if Bernie somehow ends up with more delegates and more of the popular vote, will they still vote for her?

I know this much — it's going to be a crazy summer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-clinton-sanders-dem-convention-article-1.2606167

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

6. this:

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:28 PM

Apr 2016

Barring something historically strange, my sincere guess is that after D.C. votes, neither candidate will have 2,384 delegates. They each will likely be several hundred delegates away.

At that point, the super-delegates are going to decide who gets the nomination.

He is trying to say that if neither candidate gets 59% of the pledged delegates, then the voters don't matter and that the superdelegates will decide the winner.

This is deeply, deeply, deeply dishonest. What he is saying is that if Clinton wins the voting with 55% of the pledged delegates, then she'll be the nominee only because superdelegates appointed her.

In other words, he's claiming that even if Clinton wins the pledged delegates by a wide margin, she'll become the nominee only because the game is rigged with superdelegates appointing her.

The reality is that the winner of the pledged delegates will be the nominee.

Superdelegates will not overrule the results of the voting.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

7. King is just stating the Democratic Party rules.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:49 PM

Apr 2016

I don't see anywhere in this passage one way or the other whether it be for Hillary or Bernie where King states that the super-delegates should overrule a simple majority of delegates won.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

10. he's stating that the superdelegates will DETERMINE the winner. That is factually false.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:53 PM

Apr 2016

The voters will determine the winner, the superdelegates will go along with whomever the primary delegates chose.

In 2008, the primary voters determined the winner, and the superdelegates went along with it.

2383 is not the relevant number for pledged delegates. The relevant number is 2026.

Once either candidate hits that number, the race is OVER.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

12. I agree 2026 is the number to reach a simple majority of pledged delegates but per the

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:05 PM

Apr 2016

Democratic Party rules is not enough to get nominated, that requires 2383.

Per the Democratic Party rules super-delegates are unbound until the convention.

I still see nothing in your posts where King is arguing for the super-delegates to overturn a simple majority of pledged delegates.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

13. in 2008, would you say it was (A) superdelegates or (B) primary voters

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:14 PM

Apr 2016

that determined Obama would be the nominee?

Obviously the answer is (B)--he was the nominee because he won the voting, which caused the superdelegates to support him. That's how it happened. Factually.

What King is effectively saying is that no, the superdelegates not the voters determined Obama was the nominee, because he didn't have enough pledged delegates to win without superdelegates.

If the voters determine the nominee, then that person is the legitimate winner.

If the superdelegates determine the nominee, then that person isn't the legitimate winner and has been appointed by a rigged system.

That's the game King is playing. It's dishonest and dangerous.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

16. You're arguing that the Democratic Party rules is a rigged system. 2008 was an unusual

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:24 PM

Apr 2016

Democratic Primary with much controversy.

The presidential primaries actually consisted of both primary elections and caucuses, depending upon what the individual state chose. The goal of the process was to elect the majority of the 4,233 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held from Sunday, August 25, through Wednesday, August 28, 2008, in Denver, Colorado. To secure the nomination, a candidate needed to receive at least 2,117 votes at the convention—or a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes. This total included half-votes from American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad, as well as "superdelegates", party leaders and elected officials who were not chosen through a primary or caucus. The race was further complicated by a controversy over the scheduling of the Michigan and Florida state primaries, which had been scheduled earlier than party rules permitted, affecting the number of delegates that those states sent to the national convention.

Although Obama led Clinton in delegates won through state contests, Clinton claimed that she had the popular vote lead as she had more actual votes from the state contests.[2] However, this calculation could not include many states that had held caucuses, which Obama had dominated, and it did include Michigan and Florida, which neither Clinton nor Obama contested due to the Democratic National Committee's penalization of those states for violating party rules, making this popular vote statistic effectively meaningless.[3]

Obama received enough superdelegate endorsements on June 3 to claim that he had secured the simple majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination, and Clinton conceded the nomination four days later.[4][5] Obama was nominated on the first ballot, at the August convention. He went on to win the general election, and became the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009. Clinton went on to serve as Obama's Secretary of State for his first term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

Do you believe the Democratic Party should do away with super-delegates?

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

19. I would certainly not argue with doing away with them

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:28 PM

Apr 2016

At the very least, get rid of all the unelected ones and limit it to members of Congress, governors, mayors of major cities--people who are elected by the voters and who will have to face the voters.

Would you agree that if Clinton wins the most pledged delegates, and the superdelegates also support her, that her legitimacy as the nominee is not in question?

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

21. If we're going to have super-delegates, I wouldn't eliminate Mayors of small towns.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:32 PM

Apr 2016

If as you state takes place, I wouldn't question Hillary's legitimacy, I would still grieve for our nation if Bernie wasn't the Democratic Nominee.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

23. We need to have fewer superdelegates, which is why I would limit it.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:35 PM

Apr 2016

Maybe have other rules to make it clear they can't go against results of pledged delegates unless it's a Trumpian emergency.

Uncle Joe

(58,366 posts)

25. The only problem being in politics, "Trumpian emergency" can be in the eye of the beholder, (s)

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:46 PM

Apr 2016

Anyone seriously proposing to change or alter the status quo or establishment ie: major campaign finance reform, being against super-pacs and Citizens United could be labeled in one form or another as "Trumpian" by the PTBs and the corporate media conglomerates.

This is their gravy train.

Having said that, I wouldn't have any problem with fewer super-delegates.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

15. It's not a standard, it is just the rules.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:21 PM

Apr 2016

Hillary conceded in 2008, so it was a moot point. It's not a rule that the pledged delegate winner must be the nominee.

The supers will break for the pledged delegate winner and that will be Hillary and she will be nominated on the first and only vote. There is no new or different standard.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

17. saying the superdelegates will determine the winner misrepresents

Reply to morningfog (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:24 PM

Apr 2016

the flow of causality.

If a guy drops a knife from a rooftop right in front of you while you keep your hands in your pockets, and it hits the sidewalk, it hits the sidewalk because that guy decided to drop it onto the sidewalk, not because you determined that it should hit the sidewalk.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

18. IF Bernie takes it to the convention, the supers decide it.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:28 PM

Apr 2016

They will go with the pledged delegate winner (barring something catastrophic).

But they would be the deciding factor and it's not a new standard.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

20. no, that's factually false. If they don't intervene to change the outcome

Reply to morningfog (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:30 PM

Apr 2016

they are not the deciding factor.

If a person declines to catch a falling knife, they are not the ones who are the deciding factor in whether it hits the sidewalk.

Saying the superdelegates will choose the winner is the same as saying the primary voters will not matter.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

22. If they didn't intervene, abstaining from the vote,

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:33 PM

Apr 2016

which they are entitled to do, Hillary would not secure the nomination and we would am have a second round with the pledged delegates released.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

28. their behavior would still be determined by voters, they wouldn't be exercising independent agency

Reply to morningfog (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:50 PM

Apr 2016

FarPoint

(12,409 posts)

27. It's time for Bernie to end this scam.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:49 PM

Apr 2016

He's just can't sell it anymore... Save your money folks.

highprincipleswork

(3,111 posts)

2. The math dictates that without superdelegates she probably won't. The rest is up to the convention.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:01 PM

Apr 2016

Those who support Bernie should keep on doing what they have always been doing.

Sure, it would probably be helpful to keep it "in bounds". But to clearly point out things that Hillary does or says that are in no way 'Progressive" - how's that going to help Republicans anyway? They're going to run to the Left of Hillary? Well, you could say, with someone like Trump on some issues they might. More to the detriment of "The Democratic Party", which should get its act together and make sure we are Populist and Progressive as we should be, as would be devastatingly popular and effective and necessary for the people of this country.

I in it to see that the principles Bernie supports are part of the Democratic Party.