The tough truth for Sanders: HRC would still be leading by 550 if superdelegates followed his rules

[factfinder_77]

The tough truth for Sanders & co: HRC would still be leading by roughly 550 if superdelegates followed his rules.



https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/726897278338764800

[ViseGrip]

1. there are some tough truths for Hillary as well.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Yes, winning is hard.

[beachbum bob]

2. its the math and its not working for sanders....and also the +3 million vote lead that hillary has..

wont be ignored either....and that will grow...but hey keep duping for more money, soon it crosses over into fraud

[Buzz Clik]

3. We are way past math or rational thought.

It is now "win at all costs."

[cantbeserious]

5. If This Is So Self-Evident - Why The Need To Regale DU With The Punditry

eom

[hack89]

7. Because of all the "contested convention" posts perhaps? nt

[cantbeserious]

8. So - If HRC Is A Shoe-In - What Could Worry Her Supporters So

eom

[hack89]

11. It is not worry. We just instinctively react to delusional nonsense.

it is what people fully grounded in reality do.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[aaaaaa5a]

9. I have never seen a modern day democratic voting block

As bad at political math than what I have seen with some of Sanders' supporters.

They either can't add, don't know the facts of the race, or can't except the truth.

[IamMab]

13. D. ALL OF THE ABOVE nt

[morningfog]

10. When did Sanders or his campaign promote this argument?

I asked before and didn't receive an answer. I know some supporters promoted this argument. And I know the campaign had argued that the supers could or should go with him due to national polling and polls against repubs.

But when did the campaign suggest that the supers should follow state results?

[moriah]

16. Press conference Sunday

Full speech, sound begins when he's on stage

[morningfog]

18. I can't watch now. It's always been a dumb argument to make.

[DetroitSocialist83]

12. Just yesterday. Lol

His campaign definitely did. I support sanders and I support this idea. I don't disagree with the numbers above at all. I still think it's the fair thing to do. Is that a bad thing?

[Kittycat]

14. If they went by district, how does that work out?

I don't disagree. Just curious, because my belief is that they should be held accountable to those that elected them.

[Onlooker]

17. That's the racist argument ...

Conservative Republicans have been pushing for states to award electoral votes by district rather than by state because if that happened, the votes of people of color would tend to have far less weight. Ah, maybe that's what Bernie supporters want, too!

[randome]

15. Not if you incorporate the bird vote and carry the 7.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[DetroitSocialist83]

20. Okay,

That's funny lol.

[imagine2015]

19. According to your count she's not leading by 550 now! It's only 327.

And that's too high!

It looks like you're having trouble with simple math.

Is it the "new" math you're using?

LOL

[onenote]

21. I'm guessing you are misinterpreting the word "still"

as suggesting that the lead would be the same as it is today.

But in this instance, the OP was using the word still to mean "nonetheless".

And the OP's math is correct.

1645 + 373 = 2018
1318 + 147 = 1465

2018 - 1465 = 553

[DetroitSocialist83]

22. I can actually get Clinton supporters

When talking numbers. Numbers are not something you can argue about. I'm more interested in discussing the actual issues and not just by shutting down the conversation with "she has more votes!!!372627!!!!!!!11!1!1!1"

[frazzled]

23. "His" rules

But those aren't the rules that exist. It's this kind of (what shall I call it? demagoguery? paternalism? egotism? dictatorial impulse?) that has bothered me from day one of his candidacy. It's his "my way" attitude, which extends not only to the electoral contest but to his vaguely outlined policy proposals as well. He simply does not factor in institutional (or even constitutional) structures into his thinking or decision making. He promises to break up the banks, never minding that the president does not possess the mechanism to do so, and that a host of institutions, from the courts to Congress factor into the process. He promises to provide free tuition and a single-payer health system, even though the potential for achieving such things lies at absolute zero—a fact that even the most idealistic acknowledge. His only explanation is that there will be a "revolution." Well, that revolution is not materializing in the least, so the only alternative is to play by "his rules"--meaning, tossing the constitutional balance of powers aside somehow. These are the makings of a demagogue (I daren't say dictator, but the thought does come to mind.)

The super delegates are going to stick with Clinton as long as she is ahead in both pledged delegates and popular vote, which she is most certainly likely to be. Which will mean a quick first-round nomination. And this talk of contested conventions and bullying super delegates is only likely to make it more, not less, of a reality.

[Skwmom]

24. That is not his rule. He said where a person one in a landslide. In closer races the delegates

should be split.

An distortion about what Sanders said. What a shock.