Bernie will not be mathematically eliminated, if at all, before June 7 - the last day

[morningfog]

June 7 is essentially the last day of the race, with only D.C. (20 PDs) voting after, on June 14.

Neither candidate will realistically be able to put the race away mathematically until June 7, when CA, MT, NJ, NM, ND and SD vote, representing a total of 694 delegates.

To illustrate, if Hillary won EVERY contest starting now by 60% to 40%, she would not reach 2,026 (half of all pledged delegates) until the June 7 states vote.

In short, Bernie will not be mathematically eliminated, if he is at all, until the last day of voting. (If it goes to DC without a majority for either...WHOA).

[thereismore]

1. Yes indeed. He needs to capture >54.0% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. Tough but doable.

He is already doing that with Democrats voting abroad. Even territories like Guam are important now.

[morningfog]

3. Northern Marianas vote tomorrow! 6 pledged delegates.

[thereismore]

4. Unfortunately I hear that the territories go establishment. But we shall see. nt

[HubertHeaver]

44. Outside the US they do not get the 24/7 propaganda feed.

They get the world news, quite a different perspective.

[thereismore]

49. Let's hope it translates! nt

[bvf]

54. Excellent observation. n/t

[PyaarRevolution]

6. That would be interesting seeing Hillary and Bernie talking about issues regarding Guam.

It would be nice to hear what issues are important to them that have been ignored by the MSM.

[thereismore]

8. I have no idea...

[morningfog]

2. kick

[Recursion]

5. Yep. CA is finally in play

And this is about to get really nasty really fast.

[Brother Buzz]

74. Nasty in good way, unlike the republican race

I say, "Bring on the ground game". I'm tired of California being used as the convenient fly-in ATM; I want to see good old fashion campaign stumping up and down my fine state. I believe Clinton is currently twenty points ahead in the state polls, but I guarantee, if California is still in play, Sanders and Clinton would be in a statistical dead heat. Can you say horse race? BRING IT ON!

[dana_b]

94. Yay! Yay! YAY!!!!

Sorry, I'm not TOO excited about that.

(yes, I'm from Nor Cal)

[Garrett78]

100. It's too early to say the June primaries will be consequential.

If Clinton has a lead of 400+ delegates after the March 15 primaries, it'll be virtually impossible for her to lose.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

101. I cant find any current California polls on this

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Funny that you should mention that

I found a report in Excelsior (Mexico City) today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511469524

[Garrett78]

7. 375?

California alone has 475 pledged delegates up for grabs.

[morningfog]

9. Hell's bells. Thanks for the correction. It is 694 on June 7. Correcting the OP now.

[DCBob]

10. There is a total of 694 pledged delegates determined on that day.

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

Not sure where the OP got his/her numbers.

[morningfog]

11. I added the wrong column of numbers from a spreadsheet. Corrected now.

[DCBob]

12. Great.

The numbers can be confusing!

[Jim Lane]

15. You're now qualified to teach economics at Harvard

Your first task will be to publish a paper advocating austerity policies.

[Garrett78]

13. While it's technically true that one must reach 2383 for the other to be eliminated...

....practically speaking, there can come a point where it's virtually impossible for a deficit to be overcome. I said way back last year that we'd likely reach that point in mid-March, and I still think that's the case even if the Michigan result gave me pause. A deficit of 350+ following the March 15 primaries would be virtually insurmountable.

If Sanders were down by 300 delegates heading into June 7th, he could technically win, but practically speaking he would not.

[morningfog]

14. I use only the pledged delegate numbers. 2,026 to win the majority.

If Bernie were only 300 from 2,026 going into June 7, he could still pull it out.

[Garrett78]

89. Okay, 2026.

If Sanders is behind by 300 delegates going into June 7th (and I suspect he'll be behind by quite a bit more than that), he would have to win 500 of those 694 June 7 delegates. That absolutely will not happen.

[jalan48]

16. Great to see Oregon's primary men something this year. Thanks Bernie!

[fun n serious]

17. Superdelagates

Will come in play and no threat from Move on.org will stop them. They can legally pledge who they wish. They do not have to go with the populous vote. I know they usually do go with the populous but in this case IF Sanders wins it will be close leaving superdelagates to vote as they wish. I know you don't see this as fair but Hillary has been in the DEM party a lot longer than Bernie. In fact he is only using the title for this one race. He is listed as Indy back in Vermont just in case he doesn't win. So the party can ague that too. It's an uphill climb for Bernie still.. He has to pull way ahead for the supers to change their vote.

[morningfog]

19. Whoever wins the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. The supers will support that candidate.

If Sanders manages to get 5 more pledged delegates than Hillary, he will be the nominee or the party will lose for a generation.

If Hillary wins by 5 pledged delegates, she will be the nominee.

[morningfog]

23. It's not a threat, it is political reality, one that all Democrat leaders understand.

The pledged delegate winner will be the nominee. It is so basic that it is hardly worth discussing.

Suggesting the super delegates would allow someone other than the pledged delegate winner to be the nominee is so naive to not be taken seriously.

[Scootaloo]

29. You think you're okay with losing a generation of voters?

[kenfrequed]

33. So...

Berinie winning is a loss for your family?

How about some meat and potatoes with that hyperbole?

[fun n serious]

36. I did not say that. nt

[kenfrequed]

47. Ok...

The crux of the argument is that Not going with Bernie might negatively impact younger voter participation for an extended period of time. It certainly would negatively affect things for this election cycle.

When you were queried about whether this was ok, you said something to the effect of "yes, for my family." Which seemed both hyperbolic and weird to me.

So what is your actual point? Or are you just racking up a post count?

[daleanime]

48. Which is not to say....

that you didn't mean that.

[Scootaloo]

37. Democrats losing is in the best interest of you and your family?

[fun n serious]

38. Normally no. nt

[Scootaloo]

40. But this time, apparently yes. So. Why?

[fun n serious]

42. I rather not say in a place where my freedom of speech is heavily censored. nt

[Scootaloo]

51. Uh huh.

So just to make sure we're all on the same page. Normally you're all for Democrats winning. But with Sanders in the running, you're suddenly willing to kneecap the Democratic Party for an entire generation - twenty years or more - just to prevent his chances. So. What's unique about Bernie Sanders that has created this sudden change of heart from you? Something that you dare not say publicly?

HMMMMMMMMMM. I wonder!

[fun n serious]

53. Those are your words not mine nt

[Scootaloo]

56. In fact, they're your own.

Lose a generation sounds like a threat. One I think we are OK with.

You think you're okay with losing a generation of voters?

I am. Yes. For me and my family. nt.

Democrats losing is in the best interest of you and your family?

Normally no. nt

But this time, apparently yes. So. Why?

I rather not say in a place where my freedom of speech is heavily censored. nt

You're fine with democrats losing for a generation, for the first time, for the sake of you and your family, for reasons you can't say publicly.

[fun n serious]

58. I voice my opinion far and wide. NOT here TOS violation. nt

[Scootaloo]

75. completely unsurprising.

[Loudestlib]

24. You don't think Sanders should run as a democrat?

He could run as an independent. Careful what you wish for.

[pinebox]

61. Who the hell cares if Hillary has been a DEM longer?

Seriously, this party purity bullshit has to stop. This race should be about issues not about who has belonged to what longer. I'm gladly keeping my Indy status because of circle jerk crap like this.

[passiveporcupine]

77. I know you love your gif in your sig line

But I have to tell you, every time I see it I have to laugh because the body moves are sooooo Sarah Palin (even more like Tina Fey acting out Sarah Palin).

Nice way to get my morning going with a giggle. Thanks

[PoliticAverse]

18. Note that in 2008 the final primary day was June 3rd, and Clinton ended her campaign

on June 7th.

[HubertHeaver]

60. And it was a wonderful thing she did in 2008,

staying in until the end. In 2004 John Kerry had the nomination wrapped up in March and news coverage for democrats went dark. In June, Ronnie died and took over all news coverage for 6 weeks. After the extended dark period, the swift-liars showed up and were given center stage.

[fun n serious]

63. I agree. nt

No argument here.

[Godhumor]

20. He is effectively eliminated the day pledged plus Supers get her there

I get your point, but if she is leading in pledged counts, the minute she gets to the magic number by including supers is the minute the race is declared truly over.

The chance of any other result, including a bloody convention, is minimal. I do believe Sanders will exit the race before the convention, if he is losing the pledged count after June 7th, specifically to avoid a brokered convention scenario. He doesn't have the ego to go that direction.

[fun n serious]

22. I think he will go to June 7th.

Worries me, sure but I'm in an OK space for that.

[whatchamacallit]

25. I'm sure Sanders appreciates that you're 'ok' with it

[fun n serious]

28. I am speaking of my own opinion so I don't care what Sanders feels. nt

[whatchamacallit]

55. And no one

cares what you feel either.

[morningfog]

31. I think the terms of his exit would be if Hillary reached 2,026 pledged delegates.

Even if you use the supers and work towards the 2,383 number, she wouldn't likely be able to hit that until June 5 or 7 either.

You add 459 supers, but also add 357 total delegates to be reached. So really you only add 102 to the equation in her favor (setting aside the 230 supers who have not endorsed).

Regardless, if the math somehow worked out that she had the 2,383 in her pocket, but Bernie had 2,026+ pledged delegates, I think we would see the supers start to switch. They wouldn't go against the pledged delegate count winner.

[fun n serious]

34. I know. June 7th it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Jesus, even the DNC is not counting Supers until the Convention

please stop

[Godhumor]

57. At that one the narrative completely switches is my point

And every single media outlet, politician, etc will frame it as finished. Like it or not, that will happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Please do watch this fracking video

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-national-media-has-be_b_9364170.html

And read the news story... IT IS WHAT IT IS. They should not be counted. They were not in 2008, or earlier. Please stop. I know asking people to be responsible is well... but please stop.

As to media. thanks I need to actually work on a long piece as to what is going on. I grew up in a country with controlled media. Guess what skippy, that media was nowhere close to ours. We have a full 24-7-365 propaganda operation.

It is that media that has led to Trump, for example, and false narratives like counting what should not be counted. THINK, OR NOT. Your business. But you are being manipulated, They count on that.

[amborin]

27. this is why: strange:

driving home the other day, saw my 2nd Hillary bumper sticker....on a car whose driver clearly did not know the lay of the land, so to speak....the bumper sticker was brand new looking....the car was a new very basic budget model (only mention b/c it seems incongruous for this car to have a Hillary sticker)....

analysis: this is an out of town campaign worker in a rental car; they want to get california

[fun n serious]

32. Posturing California?

We will do our part the best we can to advance our individual beliefs and whatever will be will be. Do it again in 4 years.

[magical thyme]

35. yup. at my tiny Maine town caucus, an out of stater spoke for Hillary

One person was allowed a couple minutes to speak for each candidate. A local person spoke for Bernie.

A young stranger for Hillary started by introducing himself and said he'd been living in Maine for 4 weeks, campaigning for Hillary.

No clue who he was, but I would be surprised if he still "lives" in Maine. And it was a hopeless cause here. We're an older state; we lived through the Clinton I Presidency drama years, right through them walking off with the white house furniture. Don't need a 20-something who was in diapers at the time to feed us platitudes of what the Clintons are about

[fun n serious]

39. I lived through them too. I was in my very early 20's

Best Presidency save Obama.

[PWPippin]

64. Another carpetbagger. You really can't get away with that in our small Maine towns.

Odd that a local didn't choose to speak on her behalf.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. I shoudl have taken a photo

I did not

Car had a Trump for President, a Hillary for President and a no sanders sticker on a Nissan Leaf

I asked the lady driving it, mostly I was going... WTF... well she will vote for HRC in the primary. mostly cannot stand the idea of a commie in the WH, and will vote for Trump in the GE.

MSNBC found a couple others in Florida that told them the same. Well not the Sanders, of course the MSNBC field reporter could not think that.

[amborin]

76. many, many Bernie bumper stickers in my area; the first

hillary stiker was on a late model top of line mbz, driven by 60ish woman who exited freeway at a very high rent exit;

have seen only one for trump, painted on the actual car: a total wreck; it said, "join the revolution, vote for Trump"

[Gothmog]

41. You are ignoring super delegates

[morningfog]

45. Yes, they are irrelevant. THey will not go against the winner of the pledged delegates.

And they don't truly commit until the convention.

[fun n serious]

52. Why do we have endorsements? nt

[morningfog]

65. An endorsement serves a separate purpose than securing the nomination.

It serves to bring people/groups on board.

But the super delegate as a delegate vote is irrelevant to the nomination. The supers have never gone against the pledged delegate winner and will not this year either.

[fun n serious]

69. How do you know?

Howard Dean says on his Twitter he will do what he thinks is right for our country.

https://twitter.com/MagwyerGrimes/status/706222471020564480?replies_view=true&cursor=AeBWt1QTzQk

[Utopian Leftist]

68. Hillary has endorsements because

there are plenty of Democrats who like having their snouts at the trough. By which of course I mean the money-in-politics trough, which Bernie has valiantly vowed to eliminate.

[Gothmog]

70. You are wrong

The party rules are clear and these delegates get to vote without regard to your belief

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Read this fucking story

and watch the video.

I usually have no respect for DWS, but for once she was correct

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-national-media-has-be_b_9364170.html

Try to be responsible... or not

[Gothmog]

91. I read and I understood it

DWS wants a horse race so people keep some interest in the race even though it is very unlikely that Sanders can catch up in pledge delegates. The premise of the OP is that Sanders will not be eliminated mathematically until June and that claim is false. That math is based on the assumption that super delegates count towards the number needed to cinch but their preferences are ignored because with the super delegates it is clear that Sanders can not catch up.

I found this video to be interesting

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. No, you missed it Supers have never been added to the total

this is being done to manipulate the election by powerful media interests.

[Gothmog]

98. No, you are missed-the premise of this thread is simply false

Sanders will be mathematically eliminate long before June. Ignoring super delegates makes no sense in the context of this thread

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I know people said the same think in 2008

so we shall see. I am not wiling to speak in such a definite way. But I am not a partisan.

[Gothmog]

107. Obama had a far smaller lead in delegates and that lead held up

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Obama had a similar calendar

and at one point he was trailing by that much

This election is following the same pattern, albeit a tad slower.

And yes, my husband and I are having 2008 flashbacks

[morningfog]

78. The supers have never usurped the pledged delegate winner and they will not this time.

This is basic stuff. To be clear, I don't expect it to even come up.

[Gothmog]

90. You are wrong

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Technically you are correct, well sort off

the calendar read 1968 and the place was Chicago.

I admit, as a political reporter at least one brokered convention and riots outside the other, what is not to like. As a citizen... I would prefer if at least one party maintains the illusion (becuase that is all it is), of stability.

[morningfog]

95. When have they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Technically Chicago '68

and quite frankly the two conventions this year should be must see TV... but nor precisely for the best of reasons.

[NurseJackie]

43. The sooner this is over, the better!

Go, Hillary!

[morningfog]

46. June 7 is the earliest it is likely to be over.

[Gothmog]

109. You are wrong

This contest is not going to last that long. Ignoring super delegates makes no sense

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Argue with DWS on that fine point

[Gothmog]

112. DWS was not the OP

The premise of the OP of this thread is simply false

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Your premise that the supers should be counted

that is the premise I am telling you, insisting in fact, that you go argue that point with HER.

As to your premise, this going long.

[morningfog]

114. Super delegates don't vote until the convention.

Their number is little more than "polling" at this point.

[Hortensis]

62. Exactly. We have a nation to fix.

[Karma13612]

96. And Bernie is just the President to do it!!!

He has the support of the 99%.

The more people who know him, and his policies, the more people will board the Bernie train and head right to the convention.

Yea!!!

[firebrand80]

66. How much would Bernie have to win the remaining by to get to the magic number?

[morningfog]

67. Bernie needs 54% of the remaining pledged delegates. A tough road for sure.

But not mathematically impossible. At this point, not even politically impossible.

[firebrand80]

72. The question is at what point does it become

politically impossible. If he's at the point where he needs, for example, 75% of the remaining delegates, does he stay in the race? If so, is he arguing that he can actually still win?

[morningfog]

80. We'll know much better after Tuesday. The numbers will change then.

But even if he is up against needing, say 60%, going into June 7, he is still viable.

I expect it will stay close enough that he won't be faced with a "75%" question.

[fun n serious]

82. I expect that as well. nt

[HubertHeaver]

84. When the Mets are eliminated from contention in late July,

do they pack up and go home? Even as also-rans they can have a direct bearing on who is the eventual champion.

[firebrand80]

86. bad analogy

Affecting the eventual champion is not why the Mets keep playing. They keep playing because there is an organization full of players, coaches and administrators that are being paid for a full season of work. They all want to perform well so they can keep their jobs.

[HubertHeaver]

88. It is actually a very good analogy.

The point is, you do not quit even though the situation looks very dark.

[George II]

79. There's also the inconvenient fact that there are more than 700 superdelegates.

[fun n serious]

81. Yes but it's not disputed Clinton has the advantage by a lot nt

[morningfog]

83. It is not inconvenient. It's just not relevant. It is almost certain that neither will reach

2,383 through pledged delegates alone.

And it is almost certain that the super delegates will follow the pledged delegate winner.

They don't commit until the convention so they are simply not relevant at this point.

[George II]

85. That's not true at all, otherwise Obama would have gotten 100% of the superdelegates in 2008.....

.... which he didn't.

In fact, even though Clinton had "suspended" her campaign and backed Obama, going into the convention most of her committed superdelegates were still prepared to vote for her on the first ballot. She publicly "released" them and urged them to vote for Obama

A week or two ago the story around here was that the superdelegates would/should go with the winner of their particular state. I guess now that has changed.

On the other hand, Clinton at this time has about 220 more pledged/elected/committed delegates than Sanders, and there's little chance that Sanders will win more than a handful of additional states of the 29 who have yet to vote.

With each passing week, regardless of Sanders winning a state or two, he's fallen further behind. No one sees that trend changing.

[morningfog]

87. It is absolutely true. Obama won the pledged delegate count, but did not have enough to secure.

Enough super delegates went to him to push him to the nomination. It has never happened that the super delegates have pushed a candidate to the nomination threshold contrary to the pledged delegate winner.

The Democratic Party would not allow it to happen.

[Garrett78]

97. Sanders could win more than a handful of the remaining 29 states.

In fact, he could win a majority of the remaining 29 states. The problem is the likes of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska don't have very many delegates.

[George II]

102. The ones you mention are about it, maybe the Dakotas too. But I can't think of any that he'll win.

And very few delegates from each state.

[Garrett78]

105. UT, WA, WI, CT, DE, RI, WV, OR, IN, SD, ND, ID, MT, WY, AK

I wouldn't be shocked if Sanders were to win all or most of those. That will depend on how far behind he is when those states vote, and whether or not he remains in the race. Some won't bother to vote for him if they know he can't win. He could be behind by 350 or 400 delegates after March 15.

[George II]

106. He won't win in WA, CT, OR, DE, or RI. It may be close in IN, and the remaining states where....

....he might win are relatively tiny. Clinton's ~210 delegate lead will expand to about 300 on Tuesday, and as we've seen each and every week since the primaries/caucuses began, Sanders will fall further behind.

[Garrett78]

111. I'm not so sure.

Those states have demographics that favor Sanders.