US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, because not including superdelegates in her count, but still including them in the number of delegates one needs will lead to a distorted view of the matter.

Now try reducing the total number of delegates accordingly and see what happens.

And try adding up the total number of voters who have voted for either candidate and see what you see.

I voted for Sanders myself, but I don't support this nonsense now.

Agreed. Clinton has won the majority of delegates to this point, assuming Lincoln Chaffee surrenders the one delegate he found that fell off the back of a truck.

I have no idea what Sanders is thinking, unless he really feels the polling indicates that he is the best candidate (and not the least vetted negative campaigning wise). This is over. Head into California, win 40 to 45% of the vote, send a message to the Convention that the liberals aren't nuts. Right now you are saying the Liberals are nuts!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why? Is that how party nominations work?

It would show that without help from the superdelegates Hillary also is not likely to reach the 2383 delegates needed for the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

Yes. But since the party decided that superdelegates are part of their process for choosing their nominee, why would you exclude them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why? Is that how party nominations work?

It would show that without help from the superdelegates Hillary also is not likely to reach the 2383 delegates needed for the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

As noted by others, it isn't that simple.

I believe there are a total of 3979 pledged delegates (1768). In order to win the nomination outright, you need 60% of the pledged delegates. Clinton has won 54% of the delegates (a lower percent than vote she has won). There are 714 delegates remaining. Assuming another 54%, she'll taken in 385 delegates, giving her a total of 2153, which of course is still 54% of the delegates. Clinton will have clearly won a majority of delegates, and I can't think of much of anything to suggest why super delegates shouldn't push her over the top. She needs 229 superdelegates, or about 40% of them.

 

[Rhea]

It would show that without help from the superdelegates Hillary also is not likely to reach the 2383 delegates needed for the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

Yes. But since the party decided that superdelegates are part of their process for choosing their nominee, why would you exclude them?

I see only two justifiable opinions:
1. "Superdelegates are part of the process," therefore all the ones who have said they are taking a side are verified as taking that side
or
2. "Superdelegates are an unfair idea," therefore let's see who wins the pledged delegate majority with only pledged delegates.

I do not think it's reasonable to say that superdelegates are bad therefore let's count their slots but not their votes.

Personally, I have come to believe superdelegates are a good idea to prevent something like trump, which is a mockery of the party that he has infiltrated. He's no republican. He's playing them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Required viewing for this discussion, methinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg
(John Oliver discussing Primaries and Caucuses)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Required viewing for this discussion, methinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg
(John Oliver discussing Primaries and Caucuses)

Which did highlight the unnecessary complexity of the process.

I don't see what would be wrong with a system like each candidate submits a list of delegates and if you win X delegates based on your share of the vote, the top X delegates from your list go to the convention. Full stop. If you want to add some additional logic like you need to get 20% of the vote to get any or you get more if you win by over 50% or things like that, it's fine, but those would need to be very simple and straightforward. If it takes more than 20 seconds to explain your delegate selection process, you need to redo your delegate selection process.

The caucus thing is just fucking strange and should be abandoned completely.

I think that the super delegate thing is fine too. If you have a congressperson or high ranking official who's going to be a major part of the party, it makes sense to give them a vote at the convention, seeing as they're going to be the people implementing whatever platform and the like is decided on there.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It would show that without help from the superdelegates Hillary also is not likely to reach the 2383 delegates needed for the nomination with pledged delegates alone.

Yes. But since the party decided that superdelegates are part of their process for choosing their nominee, why would you exclude them?

Yea, it's bizarre. HRC has won the popular vote (by a wide margin), the delegate vote, and the super delegate vote. The only way that Bernie could win now is for the super delegates to change their allegiance to him and ignore the popular vote.

 

[arkirk]

Yes. But since the party decided that superdelegates are part of their process for choosing their nominee, why would you exclude them?

Yea, it's bizarre. HRC has won the popular vote (by a wide margin), the delegate vote, and the super delegate vote. The only way that Bernie could win now is for the super delegates to change their allegiance to him and ignore the popular vote.

Hillary is only in the lead because of biased mainstream news reporting, closed primaries, manipulation of debate schedules, and bought superdelegates. It appears you don't have a good grasp on voter suppression either. Do you really believe the shit she spouts when she floods the room with lies? I though even you were smarter than that...unless you want more rule by liars. There are a lot of reasons Clinton has the numbers she has and none of them are good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hillary is only in the lead because of biased mainstream news reporting, closed primaries, manipulation of debate schedules, and bought superdelegates. It appears you don't have a good grasp on voter suppression either. Do you really believe the shit she spouts when she floods the room with lies? I though even you were smarter than that...unless you want more rule by liars. There are a lot of reasons Clinton has the numbers she has and none of them are good.

And also because far more primary voters want her to be the next President than any other candidate. It is, however, important that one always ignore the will of the voters in a democracy when one has baseless conspiracy theories to back one's position up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yea, it's bizarre. HRC has won the popular vote (by a wide margin), the delegate vote, and the super delegate vote. The only way that Bernie could win now is for the super delegates to change their allegiance to him and ignore the popular vote.

Hillary is only in the lead because of biased mainstream news reporting, closed primaries, manipulation of debate schedules, and bought superdelegates.

Firstly, Clinton is in the lead without a single superdelegate.

Secondly, there were how many debates already?!

Thirdly, Sanders isn't even a Democrat, but he is being allowed to be in a Democrat Primary. That is quite open to me. That some primaries are closed is up to the states, and that decision was made well before Sanders entered the race. To add wood to the fire, Clinton beat out Sanders in Open contests (11 to 8) and Closed contests (14 to 9).

Fourth, news reporting on Sanders hasn't been overwhelming, but in either the positive or negative directions.

Sanders lost, you need to get over it. And right now, with Sanders' behavior, he is making it easier for me to get over it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, it's bizarre. HRC has won the popular vote (by a wide margin), the delegate vote, and the super delegate vote. The only way that Bernie could win now is for the super delegates to change their allegiance to him and ignore the popular vote.

Hillary is only in the lead because of biased mainstream news reporting, closed primaries, manipulation of debate schedules, and bought superdelegates. It appears you don't have a good grasp on voter suppression either. Do you really believe the shit she spouts when she floods the room with lies? I though even you were smarter than that...unless you want more rule by liars. There are a lot of reasons Clinton has the numbers she has and none of them are good.

Buddy: you must be drinking early today if you think that I'm smarter than anyone! That's not like you. Actually though: Hillary has more delegates and more popular vote. The last count that I saw reported that HRC has more than 3 million more votes than Bernie. As we both know, some of the votes were held in closed primaries, some were open. However, the rules for the individual primaries were established years ago. There is no UFO nefarias plot to steal the election from Bernie!

Or are you trying to say that the existing democratic voters who followed the rules should be disenfranchised by ignoring the popular vote? Ignore the existing rules, ignore the popular vote, nominate Bernie so that Arkirk can be happy?

 

[Terrell]

For those who object to closed primaries I'd ask:

"Why is it wrong to have the Democratic nominee determined by the votes of registered Democrats?"

 

[ksen]

For those who object to closed primaries I'd ask:

"Why is it wrong to have the Democratic nominee determined by the votes of registered Democrats?"

It's not.

But if that's how they want to have it then they can pay for the primaries themselves including reimbursing the states for any state employees involved in arranging the elections, printing ballots, using state election voting machines, etc.

 

[Harry Bosch]

For those who object to closed primaries I'd ask:

"Why is it wrong to have the Democratic nominee determined by the votes of registered Democrats?"

It's not.

But if that's how they want to have it then they can pay for the primaries themselves including reimbursing the states for any state employees involved in arranging the elections, printing ballots, using state election voting machines, etc.

Buddy: aren't you the one who is always in favor of government funded elections? Take the money out of politics?

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's not.

But if that's how they want to have it then they can pay for the primaries themselves including reimbursing the states for any state employees involved in arranging the elections, printing ballots, using state election voting machines, etc.

Buddy: aren't you the one who is always in favor of government funded elections? Take the money out of politics?

It's not an election. It's a party nomination process. The election is in November.

 

[ksen]

It's not.

But if that's how they want to have it then they can pay for the primaries themselves including reimbursing the states for any state employees involved in arranging the elections, printing ballots, using state election voting machines, etc.

Buddy: aren't you the one who is always in favor of government funded elections? Take the money out of politics?

Yes, why?

What's that have to do with using state funds to run a primary election that excludes voting age people from voting in your state funded party election?

 

[blastula]

Checking a box on a registration form is very exclusionary and undemocratic.

 

[ksen]

ok

 

[blastula]

ok

Yeah, that's your argument.

 

[ksen]

No, my argument is that if political parties want to have closed primaries they can pay for it themselves. Why should independents and republicans have to pay for a closed democratic primary or vice versa? If they want to use government money then they open their primaries.

It's their choice.