Hillary wining an additional 362 pledged delegates will give her one more than Bernie could win. With a majority of pledged delegates, none of her 487 Super Delegates would switch sides giving her 2513, and she will win on the first ballot.

Is people claiming how much she needs to win if you don't count superdelegates that have pledged to her. Since she can't reach the magic number with PDs alone, she needs SDs to put her over the top.

It's a slight of hand that argues that we'll have a "contested convention" where the SD might overturn the will of the voters.

The reality is that whoever has the majority of PDs is the winner. All that's left are the formalities.

disclosed up front.

They are different in that respect.

But the chances of them throwing the election to a candidate that lost the PDs is zero.

Claming she needs to win 60% of the remaining delegates is the political equivalent of holding your breath until your face turns blue, or putting your fingers in your ears while saying "la, la, la, I can't hear you."

If you can't understand why, just wait a few weeks, it will become more clear soon.

My posts were quite clear.

Some of the new people will learn most by watching. It will be an excellent educational experience for them. After the speeches at the convention, many will stick around. It's an important reason to keep Sanders relevant until he endorses Clinton at the convention. We need to make sure these people hold interest for long enough to watch it.

Right now, some don't want to understand how it works. They are still trying to mentally justify how they can argue that someone who has lost almost every single metric will steal it in the end. Not an enviable position to be in.

Was created by Sanders' consultant Tad Devine.

response to a question I asked the poster. If you followed the subthread from Reply 1, you should have realized that. Blaming Devine for an exchange of posts on DU is bizarre.

He bows out gracefully, endorses HRC, and encourages his supporters to rally behind her,

OR ...

He slinks off into the sunset, grumbling to himself about how he was robbed.



At this point, I don't give a rat's ass what he does.

...but I do know that he'll still be a US Senator after this presidential election ends.

Each party assigns, by resolution, its own members to committees, and each committee distributes its members among subcommittees.

If he's seen as being disloyal to, or harming the party, or our party's nominee, I doubt he'll be rewarded with any of these plum committee assignments.

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Budget.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

...to prevent Trump from becoming president.

I'm expecting him to campaign hard against Trump in the fall and keep his committee seats.

... lacks the specificity of "campaigning for our party's nominee". He could campaign FOR Jill Stein and still technically claim that he's campaigning "against Trump."

expecting more from the man than he has ever done. It isn't likely. I am more with Nance. Just go away. Lol

...in 2008 and 2012.

campaigned for a Democrat (but a minute for Jackson in '88) and didn't in this primary, where he would have actually needed them. Didn't even try to help out the Democratic party. That is forward thinking, not.

Therefore, Sanders has campaigned for a Democrat.

...people to vote for HRC, but if she doesn't adopt any of his positions, then his argument will center on how bad Trump is.

... but if passive support is the best he can do, then I wouldn't turn it down.

If he is perceived as the reason for a Democratic loss in November and allows the GOP all three branches of government...and the GOP begins hurting people...I doubt he will be re-elected.

More specifically, a Democrat not interested in what the Democrat-bashing non-Democrat does or doesn't do.

You can certainly try to shoehorn reality into one of those options, but you'll have to do some lying to force it in there.

In fact, I know you do.

just go away.

it is inevitable, and he has been a politician long enough to know that he cannot burn bridges in admitting the loss and acknowledging his opponent as the nominee.

He should not bow out until the voting is finished and of course the Clinton campaign should not call for it.

But he will do so and graciously back and support Clinton with all his might.

Feelings are still raw now but give it time.

a Democrat.She is owned by Corporate America and the Wall St mafia.
Hillary Clinton hasn't won anything. She has bought her way through by the deals she made using the Clinton foundation donors and by buying the Corporate media.
The Clinton campaign has done what is normally reserved for the Republican Candidates by buying her way through with the help of the DNC Republican lite Chairman Debbie Wassermann Schultz.

Why do you think it carries any weight now?

She has wanted this for 30 years and she will do whatever it takes to get it..
She is a Corporatist

and burning bridges with the party.

The longer he stays in, the bigger an asshole he is, and I want to see just how big an asshole he is. Can he go the max?