Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of these 5 reports state that only 12 are affected by yesterday's results
23 are tied by feb 20 results
So it's still 18 Clinton to 17 Sanders.
Green Papers still has it as all 35 Delegates are finalized later in the Process, and although I believe Green Papers is typically one of the best sites to look at, it does appear they were wrong in this case on Nevada. The full slate of delegates being awarded at the last stage was in place in previous Caucuses (which is likely where Green Papers got their information from), but it does appear there was a change with the Congressional District slate this year
So it certainly looks like the 23 Congressional District delegates which were split 13-10 in Clinton's favor on Caucus night will stay that way. The 7-5 split in Clinton's favor of the Statewide delegates (which were split in groups of 4-3 and 3-2) are now split in Sanders favor 7-5 (groups of 4-3, and 3-2). So it does switch from 20-15 Clinton to 18-17 Clinton, but the 12 statewide delegates aren't finalized yet.
I am confused didn't Hillary win the primary back in February
Hillary won the Caucus in February, however several of the Caucus states have a multi step process in awarding the delegates to the Convention.
At the Caucus, in addition to voting for Sanders or Hillary, each precinct also elected delegates to represent them at the County Convention which was held yesterday. More of the delegates that supported Sanders showed up yesterday than delegates that supported Clinton, so the vote at the County Conventions favored Sanders. That vote elected the State Delegates, which will then in turn vote at the Statewwide Convention in May to select the Delegates for the National Convention.
With that being said, it appears that the 23 Congressional District Delegates (which went 13-10 Clinton at the day of the Caucus) are set in stone based off the Caucus vote. It looks like it is only the 12 statewide delegates that are selected later in the process. Based off the Caucus vote it appears these delegates were going to break to Clinton in sets off 4-3 and 3-2, to make it 7-5 in her favor. Now it appears that the statewide delegates will break to Sanders by the 4-3 and 3-2 margin to make it 7-5 in his favor. Though again these aren't finalized until May.
So basically what that means is the delegate split in Nevada initally looked like it would be 20-15 in favor of Clinton, now appears to be 18-17 in favor of Clinton.
I am confused didn't Hillary win the primary back in February
It's confusing to me too. I guess first the people cast their ballots and then there are a couple of other votes, so we really won't have the final results until June. In any case, this doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton is far ahead by popular vote and pledged delegates. He'll probably win Wisconsin, but not by much, maybe 5 points. Then we'll have to wait to see the results in New York and PA.
In FL and TX alone Clinton won 288 delegates over 148 for Sanders. It sounds as if he's only running to divide the Democratic party, although it's his right to continue. In fact, maybe he'll get enough money and run as a 3rd party candidate. He said he wouldn't do that, but he's flip-flopped on a lot of issues.
These were his own words.
"In terms of media coverage, you had to run within the Democratic Party,” he observed, adding that he couldn’t raise money outside the major two-party process.
[URL="http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/ralph_nader_who_ran_as_an_independent_in_2000_expl ains_why_bernie_20160327"]I took this quote from a pro-Sanders article.[/URL] I guess Ralph Nadar doesn't feel too badly about giving us Bush.
It's confusing to me too. I guess first the people cast their ballots and then there are a couple of other votes, so we really won't have the final results until June. In any case, this doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton is far ahead by popular vote and pledged delegates. He'll probably win Wisconsin, but not by much, maybe 5 points. Then we'll have to wait to see the results in New York and PA.
In FL and TX alone Clinton won 288 delegates over 148 for Sanders. It sounds as if he's only running to divide the Democratic party, although it's his right to continue. In fact, maybe he'll get enough money and run as a 3rd party candidate. He said he wouldn't do that, but he's flip-flopped on a lot of issues.
These were his own words.
"In terms of media coverage, you had to run within the Democratic Party,” he observed, adding that he couldn’t raise money outside the major two-party process.
He has made no indication that he has even considered a 3rd party run. Clinton has yet to receive half of the pledged delegates, until that happens there is no reason for him not to stay in the race, even if his chance is remote.
there is no reason for him not to stay in the race, even if his chance is remote.
I agree, but why do you object to anyone discussing his chances or his campaign strategy? There are so many threads now that it's difficult to follow all of them, but maybe you missed this comment. I was only speculating about a 3rd party run. Even Sanders said the only reason he was running as a Democrat was for the press coverage and to raise money, and now he has both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Although I respect Sen Sanders' right to campaign against Sec Clinton, I do agree he should be focusing more of his energy on attacking the Republicans.
Also, I just checked the website FiveThirtyEight and, although Nate Silver was off in Michigan (everyone was) he's been on target for a long, long time. He has an interesting chart showing what each candidate needs to win and Bernie needs to win by huge margins to overtake Hillary. [URL="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/"]This is a[/URL] very interesting and well thought out project on that site.
I agree, but why do you object to anyone discussing his chances or his campaign strategy?
I admit his chances aren't good. Nor have I objected to discussing his campaign strategy. With that being said, I think there are people who think she is entitled to the nomination before even getting half the pledged delegates and Bernie should just lie down and give it to her, that is what I object to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
