...your math is screwy.

in a two-person race, the candidate with the majority of the pledged delegates will be the nominee.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Hillary Clinton has won 1447 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders has won 1204 pledged delegates

There are 4051 pledged delegates available in 2016.
A majority of pledged delegates would be 2026.

There have been 2651 pledged delegates allocated to date.
There are 1400 pledged delegates still to be allocated.

Hillary needs 579 of the remaining 1400 = 41.4%
Bernie needs 822 of the remaining 1400 = 58.7%


Superdelegates are not going to be a factor.

Sid

Superdelegates will be a factor in neither candidate concedes prior to the convention because neither will secure 2,383 delegates through pledged delegates alone.

It will be put to a vote on the floor and the superdelegates' vote will be necessary to secure the nomination.

confirming that the leader in pledged delegates becomes the nominee.

Sid

be nixed altogether. But, they will still be needed to push the nominee to the magic number of 2,383 this year.

They are counted state by state. They are no different than pledged delegates except they make their minds up based on the good of the party. If you look at the list there are very few who would switch allegiance. The argument that they don't count until the convention makes Sanders supporters feel good and hang on to a shred of hope, but it is a false hope. Count the supers in each state for the person they have pledged to. If they haven't declared then they are fair game.

Many sanders supporters are insisting supers count differently at the convention. They don't. During the roll call each state adds their pledged and super numbers together when reporting.

Alabama will report 9 votes for Bernie Sanders and 51 for Clinton, for example. There are 60 delegates from Alabama - 53 pledged and 7 supers. During roll call they don't just report the 53 pledged and then wait until the end to report the 7 supers.

So, in terms of voting time they are the same.

You are now talking about the point where if you like Hillary the superdelegates that she won are democratic even if against the will of the people, but if they switch for Bernie they are stealing the election.

The supers are part of the party process of selecting a candidate. It has been that way for awhile now.

If they switch to Sanders then good for him, but that is highly unlikely to happen. But, if they did then the supers would vote for Bernie with his state pledged delegates during the roll call. That's the process.

You are the first person to be ok with the negative effects that had on Bernie in the start by stacking the deck, but also ok if they all vote for him and not call it Bernie stealing. In that case ignore my posts, most HRC posters here (vocal ones) seem ok with the Superdelegates influence unless it helps Sanders. I think they have already done too much damage, I they should have remained neutral or switched when they saw Bernie had a message people liked.

Even if it helps Bernie. Those are the rules. We play by the rules.

But, why would they switch if Bernie doesn't have a majority? Hell, even if he had a small majority of the pledged he wouldn't have a majority of the actual vote. How does this signal that the people prefer his message over Hillary? It doesn't.

Also the unpledged are party leaders who have worked with Hillary for decades and are interested in the party. Bernie isn't a member of the party. Hillary is.

To think they would switch is a pipe dream. You can rant about it being undemocratic but these are the rules of the semi-private organization.

...and highly unlikely to switch after the laundering of the victory funds, and the Enemies of Carlotta list.


But that being said, we have many weak officials in charge that will quickly switch sides if they think they will lose their jobs.

But you can think that, sure.

But let's play. So, how many weak officials would we need to have in order for them to switch sides? Quite a lot.

Take a look at the superdelegate list and tell me which would be considered weak Clinton supporters who are likely to switch. I just don't see a large number who are weak supporters of hers.

I have seen so many of them take a stance and then drop it the second election season comes around only to get voted out. I recall in almost every mid-term that Dems were in power they either failed to pass bills because they were afraid to lose their seats or they tried to wait until after to vote to avoid being called liberals but also to hold the liberals hostage to vote for them.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/04/obama-hints-to-dems-if-you-dont-pass-obamacare-you-deserve-to-lose-the-midterms/
This one was on the Obama fight where he was dealing with that issue.

I think if they are afraid to lose their jobs (if they have competition from with in more than from across the isle) they will switch, but if they are in a safe seat they are already bought and paid for by the Hillary victory fund scam.

Or it goes to open convention if neither hit it and they plead their case.

They can't automatically win if they hit the most but don't hit the required number. Nearly every DNC primary there are only two candidates by the end of the primary.

update: corrected to open convention

for the other to overtake them. There aren't enough delegates left, super or otherwise, to win after that number is reached.

There will be no contested convention. Once Bernie cannot possibly get more votes than Hillary from any combination of delegates, it will be over. And the supers will not be shifting.

Is this your first election?

I've been voting in Presidential elections since 1988.

even though I was online and active politically during the time.

I do remember I couldn't believe people were choosing Clinton over Obama.
Ultimately we avoided someone putting us into even more war.

coming up, Hillary would pretty much have to fall off the planet to lose the nomination. They both will get delegates in every state ahead, and Bernie has practically no option to bank enough delegates to catch up. Much less pass her.

She is well ahead of her mark. There is no requirement whatsoever a candidate reaches 2382 by June 14th. The SDs will put her well over the top. This race is over.

The race ain't over, baby. Not by a long shot!

By a long shot.

the candidate with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. Just like 2008, the super delegates will all vote for that candidate.

Not all the super delegates went to Obama.

after releasing all her voters to vote as they pleased. Will Bernie do the same?

And, I was a huge HRC woman in 2008. I was so proud of her, putting the country before ego.

2026 is a majority of pledged delegates. That is the number someone needs to win the nomination.

2383 is the total of pledged plus super delegates, but it is a formality and not really relevant.

because super delegates go along with the will of the voters and will support whoever won the most delegates.

The number is 2,383. It is not a formality. It is the number needed.

Sanders should concede. and suspend his campaign.

If Clinton gets 2026 pledged, she'll have ZERO problem getting to 2383 with superdelegates included.

She has 500 superdelegates now.

yeah yeah, on a technical basis the superdelegates aren't pledged, but this is the real world and in the real world they're not going to flip for Sanders.

this is getting into "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" territory.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post.

I think others are actually buying the idea that it's a jumpball if Clinton doesn't hit 2383 pledged.

To me it's inconceivable Sanders would contest it if Clinton hits 2026 pledged.

I think Clinton will hold off declaring victory until she hits that number. She could declare earlier based on superdelegates if things go as expected, but that would be a bad idea.

They vote with their state delegation as a whole.

Once Hillary gains a majority in pledged delegates, it's over.

There are some Sanders supporters who are imagining that she needs to win 2383 in PLEDGED delegates, which would be 59% of the pledged delegates. That's a laughable position.

BTW - the supers vote on the first ballot at the same time as do the pledged delegates. That means that Sanders would need to flip hundreds of Hillary's super delegates before that first ballot to have any chance of winning the nomination. Do you really think there's any chance of that happening when Hillary is going to end up with a super majority of pledged delegates by the time of the convention?

By definition that's an open convention if she falls short.

Some at the ballot box and some through years of work as a colleague.

Hillary has the vast majority of both.

Some are earned through votes and caucuses. Some are "earned" through phone calls, schmoozing or inheritance.

Supers could even be earned, unearned and then re-earned.

he's not crazy.

Of course, no one ever referred to the 2008 convention as an open convention even though Obama, while having a majority of pledged delegates, did not have enough delegates to "win the nomination outright."

So as a technical matter, yes, 2383 is the number needed to win the nomination. But as a practical matter, the candidate with the majority of the pledged delegates is the presumptive nominee going into the convention. The only issue will be whether Sanders follows the Clinton 2008 approach and steps aside before the convention or insists on a state-by-state roll call that, absent the intervention of some outside event, will result in Clinton getting the nomination.

As you pointed out: how that looks in practice depends on the second place candidate. Clinton chose to go quietly and Sanders may not.

She needs 41.4% of the remaining PDs to secure the pledged delegate majority of 2,026.

For all intents and purposes, 2,026 will assure enough supers go with her on the first vote to secure 2,383.

She has options.

Obviousy she has super-delegates to throw at the process. Considering the proportional distribution of delegates that's very likely to be enough.

Alternatively. remember that conventions can involve motion making, and the convention could vote to suspend the rules and allow the plurality of pledged delegates to indicate the winner. Consider how things have gone so far with adjusting rules and DNC leadership decsions to work for her campaign

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

not sure what the vote count would have to be, but I think they can

J. Motion to Suspend the Rules: The Chair shall entertain a motion to suspend the rules, which shall be decided without debate and which shall require a vote of two thirds (2/3) of the delegates voting, a quorum being present.

it c

All delegates include the automatic delegates. There are a total of 4,765 delegates of which 4,051 are pledged and 715 are automatic.

There are also 1,596 delegates up for grabs. The 1,400 are the number of pledged delegates remaining of that 1,596.

She needs to be ahead in the delegate count and she is...the supers will put her over if need be. Of course, as people realize Bernie can't win...he may lose votes because people like to vote for winners...thus she may have the votes. He will quit before the convention in my opinion:assuming he has any love for this country.

If you're using the total delegate number as the target instead of the PD target, you should include her superdelegate endorsements.

Everyone saying you are not are adding in Super Delegates. They will decide at the convention. Many have stubbornly stayed with a losing candidate in the past (Clinton!) and others have moved their support to a better GE choice (Obama).

It ain't over despite all of the coronation proclamations of the regular crew!

If they see Clinton has very unfavorable, no chance of beating the GOP, and facing an indictment, then I suspect all will.

This math is still so very wrong that it is sad. This theory ignores the several 100 super delegates who are committed to vote for Clinton

Namely "pledged" and "outright".

As in "Am I correct that Hillary needs to take X% of the rest of the pledged delegates to secure the nomination outright?"

I removed the percentage because I don't know it and am too lazy at 5AM to look it up.

The "Superdelegates don't count" meme has always been nothing more than a pep talk for supporters of the second place candidate. The only way it would come into effect is Sanders taking a lead in pledged delegates. If he did, then there is the possibility, if not probability, that superdelegates that have already said they would vote for Clinton would switch. They can do whatever they want regardless, but the count of their intentions is so lopsided that it is highly unlikely that Sanders could get enough of them to flip.

Put it this way, barring an amazing turn of events, Clinton might need superdelegates to secure, Sanders would almost certainly need not only a large numbers of superdelegates, but for them to flip from their already stated inclinations (pun not intended).

To clinch the nomination without superdelegates,myour math may be corrct (I didn't actually check, but it seems reasonable). However, your titles is constructed in such a way to make it seem like if she doesn't do that, she is unable to secure the nomination at all, which is, of course, completely incorrect.

Also, what would the number be for Bernie?

like to toss around here includes super-delegates -- and Hillary has more than enough of those.

The standard is and has always been getting a majority of pledged delegates -- till the first woman candidate gets this far. Suddenly, some are trying to change the goal posts, just for her.