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.
Hillary has 1716 pledged delegates. If the standard were in fact that a candidate needs 2383 in solely pledge delegates, she'd need 667. That is 72% of the remaining pledged delegates. It would be tough but obviously it's not mathematically impossible.
Of course, that's not actually the standard, which is 2383 combined from both pledged AND superdelegates. And she's less than 150 away from that when you add in the superdelegates that have expressed their intent to vote for her, exactly as the Democratic nominating system is designed to work.
The People's delegates don't vote until the convention, and they're not required by law to vote for the proletariat. Yet.
Real candidates attain pre-convention nominating thresholds (2383 for the Democratic Socialist Party) with pledged delegates alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
The nomination threshold for pledged delegates is 2026.
Sure, there is money for 50 years of tuition free college p***** away in Iraq, $3 trillion. People who whine about investing in education and then vote for candidates who supported such debacles dont have any credibility.
I wish that's the way it worked, but it doesn't. I know in past threads you told me referring to a small state like Vermont where single-payer health care failed is a poor example, but the fact is that the people who live there said it was too expensive and they didn't want a big tax hike. I think most Americans will feel that way in every state, whether it's for health care or education, no matter how important it is. They don't trust the government to allocate it fairly and honestly.
I agree with you that we p*ssed away trillions in unwinnable wars, but rarely does the government take from one budget to give to another. (i.e., Dept of Defense to Dept of Education) It usually looks to the taxpayers to fund new programs.
The People's delegates don't vote until the convention, and they're not required by law to vote for the proletariat. Yet.
Real candidates attain pre-convention nominating thresholds (2383 for the Democratic Socialist Party) with pledged delegates alone.
That's not what NYT and AP say.
Rarely do superdelegates vote against the people. There would need to be a darn good reason and then the party would lose a lot of support. The bottom line is that Hillary was much further ahead in 2008 and she bowed out graciously. She was even ahead by the popular vote throughout much of the primary and sometimes ahead by pledged delegates.
Bernie has been far behind since March. I don't know why his supporters seem to think that winning more states matters. A state like Texas is as large as 20 other states. Hillary won more votes (over a million) in Florida than Bernie has won in the past several contests. I don't feel like adding them up, but in Florida she was ahead by 31 points and more than 400k votes in that one state. Also, in April when everyone kept saying "he's catching up" she won New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware.
I've been saying this for a long time and it hasn't changed in the past 4 weeks. Keep in mind that this article was written before April 19 and April 26.
[URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/"]Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears
She now has to pin her hopes on the People's delegates--who won't cast votes on a Hero of Working Families proletariat leader until the People's Party Congress later in July.
The 2,383 number isn't supposed to be just for pledged delegates. It's supposed to be for both. It's not expected that a candidate will get to that number without super delegates.
Plus if you are going to use that standard, Bernie was mathematically eliminated from reaching that same threshold on only pledged delegates a while back.
I don't get this nonsense. She's beating him in popular vote and pledged delegates. But people keep trying to spin the votes as spelling out her imminent demise somehow. I mean... is logic not a thing anymore? At this point he can tighten the race but he can't win without the super delegates, so he'd have convince them to overrun the will of the voters as expressed thus far. Why can't we just say that instead of trying to twist math into pretzels of stupid?
The 2,383 number isn't supposed to be just for pledged delegates. It's supposed to be for both.
Nowhere have I written otherwise.
What I have written, repeatedly, in these threads, is that HRC will not meet that nominating threshold before the convention. Which has come to pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
It's not expected that a candidate will get to that number without super delegates.
Not now that she can't. She very much was expected to, handily (really more hoped--relying on 'power of suggestion'), by her globalist, leftist supporters since the inception of her campaign:
From NYT:
"The steady and seemingly inexorable unification of the Democratic Party behind Hillary Clinton stands in striking contrast with the rancorous and widening schisms within the Republican Party over the dominance of Donald J. Trump, who swept contests from the Northeast to the Deep South on Tuesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/us...tion.html?_r=0
NYT again:
"In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was nearing the point at which his campaign against Hillary Clinton would end, and that the party must soon come together to back her." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us...e-sanders.html
What I have written, repeatedly, in these threads, is that HRC will not meet that nominating threshold before the convention. Which has come to pass.
Not now that she can't.
She very much was expected (really more hoped) to by her globalist supporters since the inception of her campaign, handily:
"The steady and seemingly inexorable unification of the Democratic Party behind Hillary Clinton stands in striking contrast with the rancorous and widening schisms within the Republican Party over the dominance of Donald J. Trump, who swept contests from the Northeast to the Deep South on Tuesday."
You are mathematically wrong - as I posted before, Hillary needs 73% of the outstanding pledged delegates to get to 2383. So yes, she can get there. I'm not saying she will, and that's irrelevant as there is no requirement to meet the threshold from pledged delegates alone. But it's factually incorrect to say that she cannot get there.
And no, no one besides Bernie fans and people like you have ever suggested that she needed to get to 2383 pledged delegates so there is no disappointment.
Its a rigged system, and most Americans agree the system is rigged according to polls.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary is doing absolutely terrible compared to Bernie among independents, voters under 40 and the white working class. These are CRUCIAL swing voters and she dismisses Bernie, his agenda and his supporters on a constant basis. She doesnt excite unlike Bernie Sanders and she is a bad campaigner. This is a time when America is ready to ditch the puppet politicians who serve their financial overlords and people get served Clinton by the establishment. Sure she has 25 years of a big national profile and is popular among people over 60 and African Americans but thats not enough!
On top of this, in some absurd way that cant be explained rationally, Hillary and her supporters are ridiculously smug and complacent about the general election, a sure-fire way to lose.
People are tired of perpetual warfare instead of investing money in the American people, and they are tired of a rigged economy held up by a corrupt system of campaign finance and the sooner people realize this, the better.
I like Bernie Sanders and the things he says overall. Problems I see are:
1. He's too old. Likely to die under the stress of the Office, thus leaving the VPOTUS to take the helm. We have no idea who that is going to be, yet.
2. His ideas are extreme to many people. Some would call him a fringe candidate. He'd likely face far greater congressional roadblocks than even Obama has....so what change would he really be able to accomplish?
I'm not especially in love with Hillary or anything, but she is the more viable candidate who, despite what people think, is most qualified for the presidential office. Senator, Secretary of State, and her stint living in the White House as FLOTUS have given her more than enough exposure to the inner workings of things. She's smart, would likely rely on Bill's help, and between the two of them, we'd probably do about as well as we've done under Obama. Yes I know for some, Obama is the antichrist, but I've never seen him in that light at all.
I've come to decide I don't even really hate Trump too much, as he is more middle of the road than a true conservative. Just that I think he is, of all candidates, MOST out of touch with the realities faced by working American families. Plus, his bombastic nature is bound to make this country look pretty sorry on the world stage should he gain office.
Of course, regardless of which Dem candidate wins the nomination, I think they'd be a good pairing as P/VP candidates.
I think they are going to make some deals so where. How about Bernie as a president and Hilary as VP. That would be the first female VP if elected.
Oh, sure, just give the man the Presidential nomination regardless of the fact that he got hundreds fewer delegates and millions fewer votes than a woman.
Hillary is less than 150 delegates away from the nomination - out of over 900 left just in pledged delegates to be awarded proportionally in the upcoming 8 primaries. She WILL be the Democratic nominee and she doesn't have to ask for Bernie's permission or take VP just because Bernie wants to be president.
You are mathematically wrong - as I posted before, Hillary needs 73% of the outstanding pledged delegates to get to 2383. So yes, she can get there. I'm not saying she will, and that's irrelevant as there is no requirement to meet the threshold from pledged delegates alone. But it's factually incorrect to say that she cannot get there.
And no, no one besides Bernie fans and people like you have ever suggested that she needed to get to 2383 pledged delegates so there is no disappointment.
Never have I written that HRC needed to get to 2383 before the convention for nomination. Only that she would fail to. My forecast was realized.
Any putative 'nomination' for HRC is now off until late July, if ever.
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.
