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.
It will be perfectly clean and pretty, just like it was for Obama in 2008 (who also didn't have enough pledged delegates). You are creating intrigue where there isn't any. The Dems aren't having the same problem as the Republicans, the establishment is happy with the most likely nominee.
It will be perfectly clean and pretty, just like it was for Obama in 2008 (who also didn't have enough pledged delegates). You are creating intrigue where there isn't any. The Dems aren't having the same problem as the Republicans, the establishment is happy with the most likely nominee.
Obama actually had more pledged delegates.
Among other things, during the 2008 DNC convention Clinton tried to use the claim that she had a greater number of popular votes accrued from primary season, in order to sway the decision. It was a contested DNC convention.
The candidate with the most pledged delegates will win. Sanders supporters can pout all they want if that's not Bernie, it'll only reflect badly on them and him and won't change the outcome of the convention vote.
During the 2008 DNC convention Clinton tried to use the claim that she had a greater number of popular votes accrued from primary season, in order to sway the decision. It was a contested DNC convention.
.
She urged the cheering crowd to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in his bid for the White House, saying she and supporters should "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama ... I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."
There was nothing contested about the convention, quite the opposite!
Like many millions of others, I watched it live and remember it vividly.
During the convention, Clinton was the one that halted the first official vote and made the motion that Obama be elected by acclamation.
Among other things, during the 2008 DNC convention Clinton tried to use the claim that she had a greater number of popular votes accrued from primary season, in order to sway the decision. It was a contested DNC convention.
No it wasn't. Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama before the convention.
I don't know why a poll showing Sanders with a lead in CA would surprise anyone.
And when that happens, we can discuss whether it's surprising or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
How dense is the left? Write repeatedly only that Clinton won't make a threshold number required for automatic nomination...and the left keeps yammering about Sanders needing to "beat Clinton in the delegate count.
No, Sanders doesn't need to beat anybody in the delegate count for big problems to happen for the DNC nomination process in July. Only to keep Clinton from the required pre-convention threshold number.
Do progressives understand the difference?
No one "automatically" wins, votes of the delegates need to be cast. But if Hillary maintains her lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote, there is zero reason to believe that superdelegates who have publicly endorsed her will change their minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsFanMTL88
Super delegates aside, Hillary has a 1756 to 1068 edge and will easily take New York and California. After those two states, she'll have around 2000. Bernie's only chance is if Hillary is indicted.
Those numbers do include superdelegates. But with about 250 more pledged delegates and 2.5 million more votes, there is no reason to assume superdelegates are going to change. And I think that it's very possible that Hillary may increase her lead in both in the next couple of weeks given the numbers of delegates and votes that are going to be decided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It's not her home state. It was the only state she could get elected in so she moved there.
Well, that beats Bernie's EVER getting elected to anything in New York, a state that he hasn't lived in for closing in on 60 years. He can claim it as his birth state, she can claim it as the state where she currently lives, which has elected her twice to the US Senate and which voted for her as the Democratic nominee in 2008.
I've said only that Hillary won't meet the threshold of 2,383 ["to win nomination" -NY Times]--even with Democratic Socialist Party People's-delegates on top of the pledged ones--and that the convention nomination process isn't going to be clean or pretty (I used the words internecine intrigue).
And that Sanders's supporters aren't in the mood for a crime family dynasty if the DNC floor deliberations don't go their way.
Your link doesn't prove that someone claimed she would have 2383 PLEDGED delegates going into the convention. Given that 17% of delegates are superdelegates, it's unlikely for any candidate to get to 2383 without some superdelegates. But that doesn't mean it won't be a clean, first ballot victory if Hillary continues to maintain her lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
Obama actually had more pledged delegates.
Among other things, during the 2008 DNC convention Clinton tried to use the claim that she had a greater number of popular votes accrued from primary season, in order to sway the decision. It was a contested DNC convention.
False in terms of the spread between the candidates. Hillary's delegate lead remains about double of what Obama had at ANY point in 2008. And yes, Hillary did have more popular votes, which I think is a valid argument to try to convince superdelegates. It is, however, irrelevant this year given Hillary's lead in both pledged delegates and popular vote.
One poll has Sanders down by 6 pts, and that's enough for you to think he'll win? Even if he does, it will be by such a narrow margin that it won't matter. She'll likely win NY, then PA by a substantial margin. After that, unless he gets 80% of the CA vote it won't matter.
One poll has Sanders down by 6 pts, and that's enough for you to think he'll win?
Keep dreaming...
More than that. And you don't even have the correct number for that, nor the broader context. He trails by 12. He's up by 6 pts. in that since January while HRC has budged by only 1.
Where did I say anybody automatically "wins." I said what the New York Times said: nominated.
I didn't say someone did claim that. I said "delegates," unqualified by an adjective.
In that case, Hillary is a little bit over 600 delegates away right now. There are that many delegates just in the rest of April . I'm not saying she gets all them, but even with a 50/50 split, she's only about 300 away with about 1000 more delegates left in May and June. Highly unlikely she won't get what she needs to win on the first ballot, Bernie Bros fantasies notwithstanding.
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.
