Why Clinton Will Not Secure the Nomination, According to Math

[kgnu_fan]

This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention




https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/

Things are going to become very interesting if we have a near-tie at the convention to be decided by the super-delegates.

Things are going to become very interesting when they look back at the many states that are still crying out for a re-vote, states fraught with “voting irregularities,” polling station closures, and voter roll purges — all states which Clinton won and all states which so far have not received justice.

Things are going to become very interesting when the DNC and the super-delegates realize that Sanders, unlike the Wallstreet-backed Clinton-Machine, will bring in not only millions of independent voters that were unable to vote in the primaries, but even defecting Republican votes, sealing the GOP’s utter defeat in November.

Things are going to become very interesting when, while they are thinking about all of these things, they are doing so to the earth-shaking, thunderous chants of “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” from his tens of thousands of supporters outside, who have time-and-again proven their ability to rally by the tens of thousands — do you think that we won’t do the same at the convention?

[grasswire]

1. also very interesting when the knock at the back door...

....turns out to be a man in a black suit with a badge.

[insta8er]

2. Sorry to break it to you, but the Clintonites have the trademark on Math. And they will apply

it judiciously as long as it is in their favor.

[randome]

4. No one 'applies' math. It just IS.

Oh, this is hilarious. Hatred kills the soul. You should do what you can to get better.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[insta8er]

7. Ignorance is a far more lethal killer. Guess who will be laughing in the end?

[randome]

9. It won't be me. I'll be sad that you descended into hatred.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[insta8er]

11. I wouldn't call it hatred, its more disdain.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Clinton has 2154 pledged and superdeleagates. 2383 are needed. This blogger doens't know what

he is talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1872295

[Kittycat]

6. You have realized that Superselegates haven't voted yet.

I'm not saying she won't get the nomination, or have the most pledged delegates. However, it's very unlikely she will have the required number of pledged delegates to claim the nomination in by the time she reaches the convention. It will require voting on the floor to get there. That is the math.

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. In 2008, 2117 delegates were needed to win. Obama only had 1,828½ pledged delegates.

His 478 superdelegates brought him the victory. Notice that there was not a contested convention.

There is no difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates when it comes to voting. Whoever has enough pledged and superdelegates to equal 2383 or more wins. It is not necessary to win 2383 pledged delegates.

Clinton has 2154, Sanders 1411 (Clinton +743), with 1200 remaining. Clinton needs only 229, 19.0% of remaining delegates for an OVERALL delegate majority.

This argument that not getting enough pledged delegates mean a contested election is a false argument. It has no relationship to reality. It is demonstrably false.

Currently, Clinton has 2165 according to the AP. (Pledged plus superdelegates) Sanders has 1357 (Pledged plus superdelegates)

One of them will have a total of pledged plus superdelegates equalling 2383 or more. That will be the winner. Sanders is not going to overcome the lead in delegates or the popular vote (Clinton has +3 million)

Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally. Clinton needs 229 delegates. They can be pledged on superdelegates, because they all count in the first vote.

Finally, in 2008, there was less than 1% difference in the popular vote. Clinton is more than 3 million votes ahead of Sanders, and that will grow.

[Kittycat]

13. SuperDelegates have not voted yet. They are unbound.

You can keep pretending, but until they vote at the convention, it doesn't count.

BTW. No need to lecture me on 2008, I was an Obama supporter. Didn't support HRC then, don't now.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. Super delegates have declared themselves. As seen in past races, very few ever change.

I know it is comforting to try and say Sanders still has a shot, but Clinton huge lead in pledged delegates and her 3 million + lead in the popular vote will never inspire super delegates to change. They will never go against the will of he Democratic party.

Sanders, at best, is running a distant second to Clinton. In 2008, Obama never led by more than 91 delegates and the difference in the popular vote was less than 1%.

The blog you posted shows a complete lack of historical knowledge, and ignores the will of the Democratic Party.

[Kittycat]

23. It's not about comfort, it's reality.

I mentioned above she will likely get the nomination. But the rules are the rules. You can't drag them out for some things, and ignore them for others. Just accept reality and move on.

Btw, I didn't post a blog.

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. It is about reality. Proportional awarding of delegates is the reality.

Sanders can not win. A huge majority of the Democratic Party prefer Clinton.

[cui bono]

27. No, as seen in 2008 they DID change. From Hillary to Obama once he started winning. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

38. The only relevant question is, can Super Delegates change their minds

and the answer to that is clearly "yes". The circumstances surrounding whether they would or wouldn't is different each election and cannot be used to foretell the future this election cycle.

[LiberalFighter]

26. Pledged delegates haven't voted either.

But they will at the same time automatic delegates do.

[Kittycat]

28. True but they are pledged. Well...

I guess not all states that have voted have technically elected their pledged delegates yet. If we are to have a discussion about 2008, this is probably a good one to have. Obama picked up delegates in caucus states during the state delegate selections, many of which occur this year in June I believe. I know there's been frustration that Bernie has picked up some delegates this way already. However, I expect to see him pick up more by the time caucus states finish out, just as Obama did. We'll see.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Sanders is not an Obama.

[cui bono]

47. What is "an Obama"?

If you're talking about President Obama, yes, he is no Obama and that's why people are backing him so enthusiastically. We know he will stand by his word, not kick us to the curb once he is in the WH and he will fight to restore our democracy, taking it back from big money. Thank dog he's no Obama! That's why we need him so badly.

.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Not a Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

51. She does not need a certain number of pledged delegates...

Just has to be ahead...and she is...they can also...decide to vote for her before the convention...she already has some that have done so. President Obama was put over by supers. Hillary will be too. These sort of posts are factually wrong.

[scscholar]

55. You might be right...

if the Republican-ruled FBI acts before the convention.

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. My goodness, a personal attack posed as a question. LOL

Try studying how the Democratic Primary system works.

[Firebrand Gary]

41. What a completely laughable map!

[grossproffit]

29. Member since 2013 w/ 5 posts? bwahahaha

[Maru Kitteh]

56. It appears the troll-ey troll who was trolling this thread has been zapped.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. I want to make a point with some on a "rigged jury" theory here ...

FYI, I am juror # 4. You may never have accused Bernie Sanders supporters of rigging juries, but HRC supporters here have. This is an example of where my vote could have rigged it, if that were the nature of my being a juror. Certainly, most Sanders supporters are pretty fair about a LOT of things, and I believe alerts are one of them.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:24 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

you work for 'Correct the Record'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1872486

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"How much are you getting to (sic)
paid"

THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS MAKE DU SUCK AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY!!!

Also, MIRT needs to look at this guy or gal !!!

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:34 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It would have been fine to ask IF they worked for CTR, but not then assume they did with the next question.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 8 posts, and this one accusing someone of being a paid shill. I'm over this. -Agschmid
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. Does math mean speculation now?

[AzDar]

8. K & R

[workinclasszero]

10. #berniemath

isn't real.

[CrowCityDem]

14. Wake me up when rallies translate to votes.

[KingFlorez]

15. If the super delegates were to hand Sanders the nomination with him having less pledged delegates

Sanders would be doomed in the general election. Millions of Clinton supporters would not be happy about handing the nomination to a person who did not win the pledged delegate and popular vote count.

With that said, the super delegates are not going to vote for Sanders, because they have never flipped a pledged delegate result. How can anyone even justify defying the will of voters?

[cui bono]

31. The fact does remain that two states' primaries, one huge state, are under investigation.

I read something somewhere that there was talk of AZ redoing their election, have no idea if that is true or not. So we'll see what happens. There is no question that way too many people were disenfranchised in the primary and that people are extremely unhappy about it, as they should be.

This is one of the most unfair/corrupt and nastiest elections I have seen with so many problems in so many areas. It's a shame the Dem Party and establishment media have come to this.

.

[uponit7771]

33. speculation

[sweetloukillbot]

37. The results are under investigation?

You honestly think the Arizona election will be redone? How is that even possible? Have everyone who stood in line for 6 hours go and do it again? The process might be changed, and some heads will likely roll at the county and state level, but the election won't be redone. He lost. by a large margin. One that wouldn't be made up by the number of disenfranchised voters.

And incidently, the same is true for New York.

Especially since the voters were disenfranchised in heavily Hillary areas in both. That's probably why Hillary is the one involved in the lawsuit.

[cui bono]

39. The elections are under investigation.

And if you read my post, I did not say I "honestly think the Arizona election will be redone".

It's quite difficult to discuss things when people twist words around.

.

[KingFlorez]

54. There is no evidence that the results will change

It's extremely unlikely that the results will change.

[Sparkly]

16. Yeah okay.

Go with that.

[The Second Stone]

17. Where are you posting from? Colorado?

Because if that happens, Bernie Sanders fans will all be Rocky Mountain High with happiness. Seriously though, ain't gonna happen. The only way Sanders will win is if Hillary Clinton becomes incapacitated or dead. In which case they will nominate Biden.

[cui bono]

32. How are they going to nominate Biden if that happens? n/t

[The Second Stone]

44. Every nominee has his/her name offered into nomination

Someone will nominate Clinton, and someone else will second it. Someone will nominate Sanders, and someone will second it. Voting will then commence, probably after some speeches. The rules undoubtedly have provisions for a substitute nomination in the event of death or incapacity. But I haven't checked. No one told me to suggest Biden. I suspect his health is not adequate, but I don't know.

I was a Gore 2000 delegate. The voting is a formal process, but it is also a formality. Those suggesting the super-delegates will defect en masse are unhinged. There may well be a few defections, but more than a few are unlikely. That's feverish thinking. These people are party stalwarts who have stuck with each other for decades.

There have been no US national political party conventions since 1968 where the outcome was in doubt. That was a Democratic convention in Chicago and it was in doubt because of the death of Bobby Kennedy a few months earlier by assassination.

The Gore/Bradley bitterness in 2000 existed with all the same arguments as this year with Clinton/Sanders. Money, evil, corruption, lying etc. were all charges thrown around. It was not as bitter as this year, but it was pretty bad. The Bradley people were claiming they would never vote for Gore. By the time of the convention, that was gone, and it was three days of receptions and speeches. Alas, the Rep. Loretta Sanchez party at the Playboy Mansion was given a no-go by our California leadership. Loretta gave me a kiss on the cheek in consolation. (I probably would not have gone as too scandalous in any event as I was a potential candidate in the future at that point. I am no longer, and I don't hold my tongue!)

[cui bono]

45. Do you really think the people of the party, Bernie's supporters would stand for that?

Do you not think all hell would break loose and that would be the demise of the party?

.

[The Second Stone]

46. To have another person's name placed into nomination?

You should look to 1968 for your example, where for all practical purposes it happened and Hubert Humphrey became the nominee after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.

I don't see why the majority of delegates should have a loser forced down their throat because the winner suddenly died. I'd be okay with Sanders under those circumstances, and so would many others. But I'd be okay with Biden too. Or Al Gore.

The cult of Sanders is kind of a personal thing with people taken in by his charisma. But it leaves the scene when he does. He has not spent his life working with others in an organized political party (apologies to Will Rogers), and I feel no party loyalty to him. He's a decent guy with many good positions and quite a few nutty ones that we've been quiet about. Such as fluoridation and compulsory schooling. The Republicans would not be quiet about his nuttier philosophic indulgences.

[cui bono]

49. People taken with Bernie's charisma??? lol.

That's the first time I've ever heard that!

People are taken with what he stands for, his principles, his ethics, his consistency and his dedication to the working people. Ridicule him if you wish, I have no idea what his "nutty" positions would be, but he is not a liar, he's not a hawk and he's not best buddies with Kissinger and corporations.

He's also not a "loser". And why would his supporters take someone who didn't bother to run over someone who has grown the Dem Party and created such enthusiasm in the people and given them hope that they can fix this country and that their voice can matter and that someone is actually listening to them over the banksters and health hucksters?

Like I said, if that were to happen the establishment would be putting the final nail in the party's coffin. They've done a fine job building it during this primary with all the DWS shenanigans and voter disenfranchising. Not to mention the nasty things the establishment candidate and her surrogates have done/said. As it is there's all the people who Bernie brings to the table who do not identify with the Dem Party without Bernie being involved and they would either not show up or vote for someone else. It's not about Bernie, it's about the movement to get our govt back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the establishment and bringing in Biden or anyone else should Hillary not make it for whatever reason would be the demise of the party.

.

[kgnu_fan]

58. It is very interesting to read all the freaking responses...

[madokie]

42. Hide and watch

Bernie Sanders will be our next President

[SidDithers]

18. " if we have a near-tie at the convention"...

Sid

[onenote]

19. Delusional.

If you read through this guy's entire two part "analysis" you will see that it is based on the idea that Sanders will come to the convention with more pledged delegates than Clinton. He calculates that Sanders can accomplish this by merely getting 64.4 of the remaining pledged delegates. He claims that is easily achieved because Sanders has regularly gotten huge victories in excess of 64 percent in other states.

But there are at least (and almost certainly more) problems with his "analysis."

He assumes that all of the remaining states are basically the same. They're not. And there is no reason for anyone to think that Clinton will get only around 35 percent in each of the upcoming races. So the size of the win that Sanders would need in the final primaries will be more than 64.4 percent by that point. Possibly much more.

Even more problematic is his citing the large margins of victory Sanders has had in some states as evidence of what will happen in the remaining states. Virtually all of the 65 percent or better victory margins he cites came in caucus states and there appears to be a clear differentiation in Sanders strength in caucus states and his strength in primary states. In other words, he compares apples to oranges.

I understand wanting to keep hope alive and have absolutely no problem with Sanders staying the race, but its really not at all likely that Sanders will overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate race before the convention.

[mythology]

24. Obama won by roughly 100 pledged delegates

That wasn't seen as in doubt. Clinton leads by roughly 300 delegates but this guy thinks that's a virtual tie.

[sufrommich]

34. Desperate Sanders supporter resorts to fanfic.nt

[justiceischeap]

35. Dude must be using Bible math. nt

[doc03]

48. What are you using that Common Core Math?

[Buzz Clik]

52. good god

[Tarc]

57. Did you study hypocrisy somewhere, or is it something that just came naturally?

After months screaming about the unfairness of the superdelegate's existence, isn't it rather funny that you now claw at them desperately as Bernie's only salvation?

[wyldwolf]

59. kick for fun