I haven't looked into the OP's claim, but if, hypothetically, she does not arrive at the convention with a majority of *elected* delegates, which is basically to say if Bernie arrives with a majority (I think O'Malley has, what, one elected delegate?) they better go with him if they don't want trouble.

That said, I do think this is a hypothetical although I hope otherwise. But I do not care about the supers unless there is an actual tie in elected delegates. And I continue to be €¥&£ed that the media has been reporting supers as part of the total.

She will not have the majority of the total delegates. Neither did Obama. She will still win on the first ballot.

A majority of pledged delegates is not 2384. 2384 is a majority of total delegates, both pledged and super. A majority of pledged delegates is 2026. Clinton is currently short of that mark by 256. Winning 54% of California's delegates alone would put her past that mark, let alone when you include contests like Puerto Rico, New Jersey, New Mexico and the District of Columbia where she's expected to win handily.

It's unlikely that Clinton will get 2384 pledged delegates, but she doesn't have to. In the 2008 primary campaign the threshold for victory was 2209. Obama needed superdelegates to reach that number. And that race was much closer than this one. No one tried to argue that made his victory illegitimate.

In what is otherwise an, IMO, ridiculous set of posts and replies.

I was about to post that.

The OP is one of hundreds here that has two objectives:
1- trash the obvious nominee
2- wait and see what impact that might have on the November race.

Personally, I can't wait for the day after California when Skinner shuts this kind of crap down.

People who make stuff like that confuse our process with the GOP...the supers will move to her after the last contest that matters which is California and Jersey. That is how it worked in 08 and Obama was not leading by even a 100 delegates and he did not have the popular vote...the indictment fairy is your only hope...and I heard that biotch caught the last train to never never land. It is over.

enuf delegates to have any "lock" on the nomination

Clinton will have a clear majority pledged delegates after June 7, and thus superdelegates will see no reason to switch to Sanders.

Did you also claim on June 3, 2008 that Barack Obama did not have a "lock" on the nomination? After all, he had a majority of pledged delegates but needed superdelegates to put him over the top.

on another note, odd how these low count accounts suddenly activate

With no birth certificate. He seemed to overcome that quite well as will Clinton. Negotiating or denial? What stage of grief are you in?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

And I've had this account since 2004, I just never post outside of elections.

Edit: Correction, this one was opened 2010. I had a previous account that I lost access to and created this one.

Super delegate don't vote until the convention.

Neither do pledged delegates.

All that matters is whether you win on the first ballot. If it's known that you will win, then you are the presumptive nominee.

In less than 100 more delegates won, Clinton will be the presumptive nominee.

That it won't be official until the first vote at the convention doesn't make her anything less than the presumptive nominee.

Because, as far as I can tell, nobody is claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Yet that straw man keeps getting cloned in thread after thread, post after post.

it only seems to be the most fawning Sanders acolytes that haven't accepted the fact that Hillary will be the nominee.

Sid

shortly after polls close in NJ.

Sanders is a spent force, time to get with the winner and take on the fascist Trump.

They like to be wrong and spread misinformation.

.

Right now, as of today?

You were basing your remarks on number of pledged delegates, and you are referring to Trump as the Republican nominee.

He put CANNOT in all caps.

do you disagree with? If anything, the man was generous in his estimations. Or do you just have snark?

No wonder everybody loves her!

Hillary's opposition is the easiest in the world to ridicule.

Can you even imagine how you look to us?

I really hope they can't imagine it because if they can and they STILL behave this way, they're just sociopaths.

And then justify it by saying they're "the easiest in the world to ridicule."

Like the school yard bully explaining why his behavior, "He's just such a wimpy kid, I had to beat him up."

You really put that college degree to use!

Welcome to ignore.

I predict the SD's will go with Sec Clinton, regardless of polls.

He wasn't able to get the majority of democratic voters to back him. since he is in good health, there is no reason why he shouldn't run in 2024.

No offense intended toward him, but the actuarial tables are not kind on this point.

I wish I had his health..!

One has to wonder if he wants to keep on, or he's being goaded into continuing by his inner circle?

swollen face, overweight, takes coumadin for clotting risk (coumadin is a risky drug, needs regular INR tests and it's difficult to get the dose right, and it varies with diet; my uncle got an arterial nosebleed while on it, scary even ER could not stop bleeding for hours

Actually, the stamina of both of our Democratic candidates is a marvel.

Hillary's health issues and medications are no more significant than Bernie's:

"Over the years you have been treated for medical conditions including gout, mild hypercholesterolemia, diverticulitis, hypothyroidism, laryngitis secondary to esophageal reflux, lumbar strain and complete removal of superficial skin tumors," Monahan wrote. "Your past surgical history consists of repair of your left and right side inguinal hernias by laparoscopic technique, and a right true vocal cord cyst excision."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/bernie-sanders-medical-records/

therapy bespeaks a chronic and serious blood clotting disorder with associated risk of potentially fatal embolus

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm guessing that you're not. My hematologist would say that you are posting a lot of incorrect and misleading information.

"She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders," Bardack writes."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/hillary-clinton-health-tax-release/

He released a "doctor's note." A one page little note with few specifics.

But he's been about as transparent with his health as he has been with his TAXES.

He's refused to release the 2 documents that any successful POTUS candidate releases.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter. He won't be the nominee.

This is the culmination of his life's work. It is a fulfillment.

He's had a little hunch for some time, apparently, but other than that he looks great and getting better to me.

Lucky for her, she will be term limited by that time...

at the convention. That's sort of the point of a convention...Berners having a temper tantrum doesn't change reality.

Obama never had this crap.

Big difference. Obama reached the requisite delegate count on June 3, 2008.

Hillary is not there and can't get there before the convention, despite the lies of a very dishonest, lying campaign.

Watch the video.

He needed supers to get the majority of delegates. There were virtually no posts saying he didn't have the nomination. He won by 62 pledged delegates and Clinton gracefully stepped down, as Sanders will do after losing by far more.

Clinton is looking to clinch the majority of delegates, the majority of pledged delegates, most states won, and the popular vote.

This is the absurd double standard Clinton has to deal with and it's pathetic. It will go down just like 2008. The pledged delegate leader will be nominated.

In 2008 Obama needed the super delegates to get a majority of all delegates. He won the pledged delegate count by about 100, but he didn't get enough pledged delegates alone to win a majority of all delegates.

In 2016, Clinton will do the same on June 7th, but with a much wider margin in the pledged delegates.

You can't possibly claim with any degree of credibility that Obama won in 2008 on the circumstances of the super delegates pushing him into a majority but Clinton doing the same doesn't count.

Clinton will have a majority of the delegates on June 7th. There is no viable path for Sanders to prevent that short of Clinton getting run over by a bus.

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.[5][6] Obama was nominated on the first ballot, at the August convention.

A last-minute rush of Democratic superdelegates, as well as the results from the final primaries, in Montana and South Dakota, pushed Mr. Obama over the threshold of winning the 2,118 delegates needed to be nominated at the party’s convention in August.

Obama did had a majority of pledged delegates before the convention but needed super delegates to nail down the nomination.

The question is why you let your post stand after its been repeatedly pointed out that its a baldfaced lie?

From Wikipedia:

"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."


Now just stop.

#130 just below.

He did not have enough to win on pledged delegates alone. And when the final primaries were concluded, Obama led by a very narrow 62 pledged delegates. Clinton currently is head by 272 pledged delegates. More than quadruple Obama's 2008 margin.

But someone can be the presumed nominee, which Obama was. The superdelegates made it official, as expected. And Clinton's lead this year is greater than Obama's ever was in 2008.

MSNBC, like the NYTimes, NPR, WaPo and other MSM outlets, is fighting to defeat the only non-corporate candidate out there, so they push the LIE that Hill and already won.

A corrupt establishment pushing its corrupt candidate.

Not only hasn't she won, she CAN'T win before the convention.

this explains the bold banners proclaiming hillary the winner of the wa primary along with her pledged & super delegate total proclaiming her the nominee.... in their dreams.

2016 will be no different for Clinton.

As the video shows, Hillary cannot get the necessary delegate count from the remaining primaries.

While peddling this nonsense. Obama needed supers to win.

I'll bet you do! Sheesh! Are you incapable of research? Here:

He had 1828 pledged delegates, far short of attaining the nomination without supers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

Stop lying, now. You have been informed. You cannot plead ignorance.

Once you have that, the supers will back you. Pledged delegates.

Neither Hill nor Bernie can reach 2383 pledged delegates before the convention.

He needed 2117 to have the majority. He had 1828 pledged.

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

You are WILLFULLY lying now.

This is like elementary school math. 1763 < 2118. 1763 + 438 = 2201. 2201 > 2118.

*sigh*

He was a few hundred pledged delegates short when he became the presumptive nominee -- the SDs were only projected (not actual, since they don't technically vote until the convention) but were included in his total, giving him a majority.

Thus he needed the supers to put him over the top. Which they did on June 3.

read better--or read the whole article.

I believe it was 60 or so supers who committed to him after the last primary in 08 and it was curtains for Hillary...and if Bernie wants influence he will concede as well...after she gets the majority of pledged delegates on June 7th which she will even before California when Jersey votes.

is a Sanders supporters staple in life. Ignorant of the power of the President. Ignorant that if they truly want to advance progressive issues, Sanders supporters in red western states should elect more senators and congressman first.

He had enough pledged plus SUPER delegates to win.

Look at the chart at your own doggone link!!!! Without those super delegates, he didn't have enough.

smh!




LOL @ your "math"....damn!

From your own source, Wikipedia:

"After a rush of support for Obama from superdelegates on June 3, the day of the final primary contests of Montana and South Dakota, Obama was estimated to surpass the 2,118 delegates required for the Democratic nomination"

In other words, Obama was regarded as the nominee before the convention based on a combination of pledged delegates and super delegate commitments.

Which will be true of Clinton as well.

He was ahead of Hillary by only 102 pledged delegates.

Please revise your posts, you're just embarrassing yourself.

The networks are going to call the race on June 7th, Sanders is going to concede on or shortly after June 15th, he's going to endorse Hillary Clinton, and those of us who are concerned about the country staying out of Donald Trump's hands are going to get to work electing Hillary Clinton and as many down-ticket Democrats as we can.

Yes, you are. And WRONG.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2054431

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The poster he is replying to said "sorry." He responded "yes, you are." In other words, he called the poster a sorry individual. And he did so without any provocation. That is an unwarranted personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 25, 2016, 10:36 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Put down the coffee and step away from the keyboard, alerter. These alerts are getting silly.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How petty
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Much of this thread is just cheap insults. This doesn't stand out.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pretty borderline on the insult.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Please hide. All evidence supports that this is an insult, not an argument or discussion.

Hillary won't have the necessary delegate count.

The networks make calls based on projections every election cycle. They may not even wait until the polls close in California.

"If you look at the few remaining contests on the Democratic primary calendar, the major news outlets — barring something devastating happening to the Clinton campaign in the next few weeks — are likely to declare Clinton the nominee on June 7. "

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-will-likely-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-in-new-jersey/

He doesn't have the "necessary delegate count".

The networks can and will call the race, just like they did for Trump.

some winning lottery numbers and tell me what date they're good for? You are apparently good at telling the future and I could use the cash. Thanks.

25 of 60 delegates from Puerto Rico
52 of 126 delegates from New Jersey
190 of 475 delegates from California

For a total of 267 delegates. She only needs 256 to get to 2026.

She can get

ZERO from the Virgin Islands
ZERO from Montana
ZERO from New Mexico
ZERO from North Dakota
ZERO from South Dakota
ZERO from the District of Columbia

and still have the majority of pledged delegates.

Not sure where the math in the OP comes from.

Thanks for counting only pledged.