No matter what Sanders says, there can’t be a contested Democratic National Convention.

[wyldwolf]

Political pundits and junkies alike thrill to the prospect of contested conventions, with multiple votes needed to pick a nominee.

And, while Senator Bernie Sanders says this is going to happen at the Democratic National Convention, there’s no way it can.

On Sunday, May 2 Sanders said, “[Clinton] will need super delegates to take her over the top of the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, the convention will be a contested contest.”

But needing superdelegates to get a majority of all delegates is exactly what happened in 2008. No one called that a contested convention.

There was one vote for the nomination, won by then Senator Barack Obama. Contested conventions have multiple ballots.

There were two key things in 2008 that are also true in 2016.

1. Pledged delegates, the ones won from primaries and caucuses, and unpledged delegates, also known as superdelegates, all vote on the first ballot, taken state by state.

2. With two candidates, mathematically one must receives a majority of the delegates’ votes. The candidate who gets a majority the nominee.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Why is Sanders saying there could be a contested convention?

Sanders, who became a member of the Democratic Party rather recently, has likely never gone to the party’s national convention, so perhaps he is confused about how voting takes place.

Some have suggested this claim is being made to keep fundraising going and volunteers engaged so that Sanders can keep his campaign viable through the end of the primaries. Sanders would like to stay in the race to spread his message and in case there is a massive change in voter preferences.

Last month’s fundraising report showed a 40% drop in donations to the Sanders campaign, which has had to lay off hundreds of staffers.

That big decline is likely a result of many Sanders supporters realizing that he has virtually no chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. To do so, right now Sanders would have to win all remaining contests by an average of 30 percentage points — 65% to 35%. Doing worse than that in any primary or caucus would require Sanders to win even bigger in primaries and caucuses after that.

Whatever Sanders’ reason, there can’t be a contested convention when all delegates vote together and there are only two candidates.

https://bangordailynews.com/2016/05/02/uncategorized/sanders-contested-democratic-national-convention/

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Because it is clear that Sanders can not feasibly take the lead.

He falls back on the contested primary as a rational to convince people that he remains a viable candidate.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Good post.

I have pondered this before: Why is Sanders running as a Democrat when he isn't one? So odd.

[morningfog]

5. Sanders is a Democrat and will remain one after the convention.

[COLGATE4]

26. When he goes back to the Senate wlll he change his

party identification from (I) to (D)???

[morningfog]

27. That is my understanding. His campaign said he would stay with the Democratic Party moving forward.

[COLGATE4]

32. I guess time will tell.

[KelleyD]

76. Will he? Will you lay money on it? I didn't think so! n/t

[morningfog]

86. His campaign said it. It seems to be part of the back room negotiations.

He's a Dem to stay. If I had extra money, I would put it on it.

[rock]

62. $

Did I get it?

[griffi94]

3. They don't seem to know what contested convetion means

Neither candidate will have enough delegates to put them over without
the unpledged delegates.

BUt it's not contested unless the first ballot doesn't put either candidate over the top.
Then the pledged delegates are released and all the brokering starts.

Hillary is going to easily win on the first ballot.
There won't be a second ballot.

The fact that neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to go over
before the convention doesn't make it contested.

[Orsino]

55. What you just described is in fact a contested convention.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-bizarre-brawl-filled-history-of-contested-conventions-20160407

....But first, a quick semantic note: A brokered convention happens when no candidate is selected on the first ballot at the convention, and then deals are made by power brokers behind the scenes until some candidate is able to win the necessary votes; no convention of this kind has occurred since 1948 for the Republicans and 1952 for the Democrats, largely because power brokers no longer exert much influence over large blocs of delegates in either party. The below are contested conventions, which occur when the outcome isn't certain as a result of the primaries, but the winner is determined on the first ballot....

Sanders used the term correctly. So should we.

It is the brokered convention that looks thermodynamically impossible this year.

[Garrett78]

60. There would only be a "contested convention" if no candidate won a majority of *pledged* delegates.

Which is an impossibility when there are only 2 candidates.

[Orsino]

88. That's still not right.

If only one candidate shows up at the convention, then it's not contested. We seem about to have two, therefore the nomination is contested. Only if a second vote is needed do we call it brokered.

Sanders used the term correctly.

[morningfog]

4. It's semantics. It will be one vote, so it will not be brokered. It will be contested in that

neither candidate will secure the nomination until the floor vote. The contest will continue until the vote, in which the supers will push one candidate to the nomination.

[Hiraeth]

9. ^This^semantics^

[OilemFirchen]

12. Fine.

Let's re-define "contested" by your standards. That means that all primaries are contested unless there is only one candidate.

What, then, is the point of this argument?

[morningfog]

13. All primaries are contested unless there is only one candidate. That does not mean the CONVENTION is

contested. That is a separate question. 2008 was a contested primary, but the convention was not. Hillary had conceded and released her delegates.

Most other primaries, one candidate had secured the nomination through pledged delegates or by the concession of all competitors, resulting in conventions not contested. I am not redefining anything or using any new standard.

[OilemFirchen]

19. Huh?

By the same standard, all primaries including more than one candidate are "contested". I have no problem using the term, I'm merely curious as to why it's relevant - especially since it's never been part of the conventional lexicon until very, very recently.

It's a bit like your dentist telling you that have "potential dental problems" because you have teeth.

[morningfog]

21. Primary has several meanings.

If there are two candidates on the ballot when a state votes in its primary, that is a contested primary. For this use, the state voting day and campaigning up to it is the primary.

As long as two candidates are running during the time in which states hold votes, the Primary is contested. For this use, the Primary is the Democratic Primary. Once all candidates but one drop out, the Primary is no longer contested.

At the COnvention, if there remains more than one candidate in contention, and neither has secured the magic number through pledged delegates, the convention is contested. The Primary would have been contested through the convention.

[griffi94]

28. The way you're defining it all conventions are contested

and so by that definition this one will be too.

The difference tho is that Bernie isn't really in the running anymore.
He's not conceding and he'll run a competitive race till the first ballot.
But he has no realistic chance of it going to a second ballot.

The unpledged delegates are going to put her over the top.
They'll follow the pledged delegates of which she'll have an
overwhelming majority.

[morningfog]

37. No I'm not. WHy is this so hard for people to understand?

Most conventions have one or two elements not present this year:

1- All but one candidate concedes prior to the convention: Not a contested convention.
2- One candidate secured enough pledged delegates to reach the nomination threshold through pledged delegates alone. Not a contested convention.

Here, neither candidate will have secured enough pledged delegates through pledged delegates alone and two candidates will go on to the convention. It will be contested and will be decided on the first vote since there are only two.

[KittyWampus]

42. No, it's not just "semantics". Clinton will have the majority and the formality of the vote

is just that- a formality.

He is simultaneously pretending he still has a shot at a clear majority of delegates whinging about losing states because of rigging/cheating is dishonest.

[morningfog]

44. The vote is not a formality. She will NOT a have a majority of the delegates

UNTIL the super delegates vote because she will NOT have secured the majority through pledged delegates alone.

[KelleyD]

77. There is no way he can overtake her...even if he comes within 1 delegate. She will win. no SG needed

[morningfog]

87. Yet there the supers are. Ready to exert their undemocratic might when they choose.

[beachbumbob]

6. Sanders handlers want to keep pay checks rolling in...sanders ego won't let him

To civility end the race....Jane and Bernie love the limelight and the future millions they will make...lots of reasons to stay going

[NCTraveler]

7. He has seen his donations nose dive. He is desperate to keep money coming in the door.

He knows his base is desperate and believe what he is saying here. He knows they are the only ones who believe it. He is simply separating them from their money.

[KelleyD]

78. He needs to pay for that "Roman Holiday" you know!

[NCTraveler]

80. No, I don't think there is anything extravagant about the guy.

I also think that Weaver is running him over and destroying something great that Sanders was building. The Sanders campaign hasn't reflected who Sanders is for a while now. Weaver has Sanders trust and he shouldn't.

[KelleyD]

83. I hear you NC...I have said they should get rid if Devine and Weaver!

[Kip Humphrey]

8. Martin O'Malley and state candidates.

[The Second Stone]

10. Under the logic being used here, a candidate who has clinched the nomination

by a thousand pledged delegate faces a "contested convention" because the vote is still formally cast from the floor and a candidate with two delegates, one to put the name into consideration and a second can cause a "contest". It's been a contested primary. The names will be placed in nomination, and there will be a clear winner on the first ballot, and we already know who that will be. I suppose that is technically "contested". But the outcome is certain.

[morningfog]

14. No, you are mistaken.

If a candidate has clinched the nomination though pledged delegates, it could not be contested.

[The Second Stone]

16. Well, one of us is mistaken. I've actually been a delegate

and know how the voting works. You don't know what the heck you are talking about, but please, continue governor.

[KittyWampus]

43. And since that has NEVER been the standard it's bullsh*t to start it now.

[morningfog]

45. It has ALWAYS been the standard, lol.

[IamMab]

25. I tried pointing out that Sanders supporters don't understand the primary or convention process

but all that earned me was a hide from one of the BS 4-3 juries roaming around here looking for easy prey.

[The Second Stone]

33. Well, we are all about majority voting, even

when we lose. I notice that the promises to vacate DU don't seem to include leaving the jury pool. This is actually encouraging for the November election.

[morningfog]

38. You probably got a hide for being insulting and rude, not for simply being wrong.

[OilemFirchen]

11. Perhaps this simple illustration will help the math-impaired.

Clinton needs 381 delegates to reach the majority of 2026. If she only gets 40% of the delegates between now and June 5, she's left with a deficit of 244. That means she would need 35% of California and New Jersey. Period. She could lose all of the other primaries on or after June 7 by 100% and still be the nominee.

Math. It's fun!

[morningfog]

15. And that would still leave her 300 or so shy of securing the nomination, 2,383.

[OilemFirchen]

20. This is about a "contested" convention.

Of course, by your semantic standards, even if she reaches 2383 before the convention, it's still "contested".

#BerniePedantics

[morningfog]

22. If she reaches 2,383 through pledged delegates, it could not be contested.

[KittyWampus]

46. That has NEVER been the standard and it's only tortured logic to start that now.

[morningfog]

48. Bullshit. THat has always been the standard.

It is nothing new. The only difference is that neither candidate will hit 2,383 through pledged delegates alone and neither will concede before the convention.

[Dem2]

54. 2026 is the number needed without supers

You can't use the number needed counting super-delegates, that's not right.

[morningfog]

61. You all keep skipping steps.

The number needed to secure the nomination is 2,383. That is a fact.

Neither candidate will have reached 2,383 pledged delegates when voting concludes on June 14. That is nearly certain. HIllary would need 71% of the remaining pledged delegates to do it.

Bernie says he will not concede prior to the convention and that he will stay in the race through the convention. It remains to be seen whether that position changes. This scenario makes it distinct from 2008 and most other years.

The result is that neither candidate will secure the nomination until the votes are formally cast by the pledged and super delegates. The nominee will secure the nomination only when enough super delegates and pledged delegates have cast their votes to get them to 2,383 total.

It will happen on the first round and it will almost certainly be the pledged delegate winner who will almost certainly be HIllary. However, not until the vote is cast will the nomination be mathematically or actually secured.

[Dem2]

64. Yes, the convention uses both pledged and supers

But since supers are not 100% certain until the convention, we can call the winner when one of them reaches 50% + 1 of the pledged delegates, then just assume the supers will go with the winner of the pledged delegates.

# pledged delegates = 4051

# pledged for a majority = 2026

therefore, the number needed to win is 2026.

Why should a candidate need 2383/4051 = 59% of the pledged delegates to declare themselves the winner? That's an unrealistically large hurdle.

So, it's not technically correct to say it takes 2383 to "secure the nomination". In reality, the candidate that gets 2026 pledged delegates wins since the supers wouldn't override the will of the people and will (should) always go for the candidate that wins the majority of pledged delegates. Thus 2026 wins.

[morningfog]

65. No, we have 15% of our delegates in the undemocratic super weighted super delegates.

The number to secure is 2,383.

2,026 will not secure the nomination. We can assume the supers will follow the pledged delegate winner, but until they vote, the nomination is not secured.

[LiberalFighter]

17. And the beauty of the Democratic Primary system

is that she still receives delegates even if she doesn't get the majority of the popular vote.

[imagine2015]

18. Over 150 superdelegates have not endorsed Hillary in 2016 and over 200 flipped to Obama in 2008.

There is plenty of time for superdelegates to stop a Trump landslide by getting off Hillary's Titanic and supporting the candidate who can beat Trump or any Republican candidate .... that candidate is Bernie Sanders.

[Tarc]

23. They "flipped" because he was the clear winner of the pledged delegate count

Can't say the same for the Bernster.

[The Second Stone]

35. That is what is so "socialist" about "revolution" is that it is

for our own good even if we reject it by millions of votes. I frequently do not like the way voting goes. But I do abide by it either way and try to change it through the rules process.

[hamsterjill]

56. THIS is the part that (in my opinion) the Sanders supporters won't acknowledge.

Hillary has the popular vote.

Bernie knows he's not going to win the nomination. He's hanging on to try to influence the platform and for whatever other reasons that he chooses to hang on for.

[IamMab]

24. #BernieSoMath

[basselope]

29. If no one has a majority of the pledged delegates the convention is contested

Until the vote is actually taken.

This is just reality.

[Garrett78]

34. It's guaranteed that 1 of the 2 (Clinton) will win a majority of the pledged delegates.

Because there are only 2 candidates. How do folks not understand this?

[morningfog]

39. A majority of pledged delegates will not secure the nomination.

Understand that?

Super delegates hold 15% and change the number to secure from 2,026 to 2,383. Get it?

[Garrett78]

47. I was responding to the "if no one has a majority of the pledged delegates" remark.

Get it?

Numerous posters are suggesting it's possible that neither candidate will win a majority of the *pledged* delegates. With there being only 2 candidates, such statements are truly dumbfounding.

Clinton will secure the nomination on the first vote (when both the pledged delegates and the superdelegates from each state cast their vote). There will not be a contested convention. There wasn't one in '08 and there won't be one this year. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.

[morningfog]

52. Oh, I see. I did not see the post above yours. Yes, one will get a majority in pledged delegates,

that is obvious.

[basselope]

50. Majority doesn't = WIN

[Garrett78]

53. Well, it kind of does.

But at least you acknowledge that you were wrong. It's absurd to say no one will get a majority of pledged delegates, since it's guaranteed that 1 of the 2 will get a majority of the pledged delegates.

It's also absurd to think the candidate who will likely end up with close to 2200 pledged delegates (vs. 1850ish for her opponent) won't be the nominee.

[basselope]

69. No, you need to get to 2383

If you don't have it in pledged delegates, it is contested by definition.

[Garrett78]

72. Wrong.

Was 2008 "contested?" No, it wasn't. The only difference between then and now is that 2008 was much closer.

[basselope]

81. There was only 1 candidate left at the time of the convention

Clinton withdrew before the vote, so there was only 1 candidate left.

However, had she stayed in for the first ballot, even if she was guaranteed to lose with the superdelegates, it would have been a contested convention until after the first ballot.

[basselope]

70. No, sorry.

[basselope]

79. Except for the fact that you're wrong

Without 2383 pledged delegates, it is, by definition, a contested convention.

Yes, it is how it works. This is the Democratic Party primary, not a socialist revolution.

[KittyWampus]

49. NO, it's not. That is ridiculous. The vote is a FORMALITY. In no logical sense is it contested.

There is no contest at this point.

There is only an angry, bitter candidate telling his supporters the only reason he is losing is because of cheating but that he can still win using super delegates.

[basselope]

51. Formality or not, it is STILL a contested convention.

[Garrett78]

59. No, it isn't.

If 1 candidate wins a majority of the *pledged* delegates and that candidate is then nominated on the first ballot at the convention, which is precisely what will happen, there is no contested convention.

You don't seem to understand how the process works. If it's any comfort, you're clearly not alone.

[basselope]

68. Yes, it is.

If neither candidate has reached 2383 pledged delegates, it is a contest convention by definition. And it REMAINS a contested convention until after the first ballot.

You don't seem to understand how the process works. If it's any comfort, you're clearly not alone.

[KelleyD]

82. Bernie is a hypocrite. First he was against the Superdelegates..now he is counting on them!

[PeteSelman]

31. I just donated yesterday.

Had a spare ten bucks and threw it to Bernie. He's a great dude, deserves support.

[Jitter65]

36. You could have bought a homeless person a meal. nt

[morningfog]

40. Is that the new HIllary butt hurt for winning line?

[PeteSelman]

41. I also could have bought a dime bag of heroin.

Or some D batteries.
Or two Koosh balls.

Instead I donated to Sanders' campaign.

[The Second Stone]

67. I bought a homeless person a meal today!

And I made a children's fund donation in the name of Hillary! With the exclamation point.

I did this because it is all about me! I, me, mine!

[rock]

63. One little points

Of the other Dem candidates (such as Malloy(?)), did they take any delegates with them? Was Malloy the only one?

[morningfog]

66. Not other candidates received a super delegate. O'Malley has one super delegate supporting him now.

[rock]

73. He does?

Does this mean the two viable candidates can tie? (however unlikely)

[libdem4life]

74. Sad we're not discussing the candidate that easily wins over Trump.

It's like rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Trump will rip HRC to shreds with all the ammunition out there. And no, he's not vulnerable because his misdeeds had nothing to do with governing or pay to play or any of the other well-documented misdeeds of HRC. And he knows how to "turn a phrase" for maximum effect.

He's in a class of its own when it comes to her Republican Vast Right Wing Conspiracy experience, thus far. The Republicans themselves don't know what to do with him either.

And that "she has already been vetted" is ridiculous. All of her scandals, plus the new ones will give him plenty to go after and it will be totally in the open, on TV, etc. The other ones were hear-say...we never heard or saw anything. It was his word vs her word.

[KelleyD]

84. Thanks for your support! Who are you "Dem for life "really!

So vote for Trump and I hope you will be happy with the outcome.

[libdem4life]

89. Please. I'm a Liberal.

Not being for Hillary Is Not Not Being a Democrat.

So stop it already.

Hillary's chances of beating Trump are slim. Bernie are double digit. Hillary is Not the Democratic Party . She chose to get rich and hobnob with the rich.

So tell me why to vote for a Hawk...the rest is well documented. I'm a frigging Democrat...a real one.

So take your shame thing and sit on it.

[DLCWIdem]

75. don't waste your time

All of the Berniemath arguements are just meant to obscure the fact that she has more votes, she has more way way more pledged delegates even without the SDs, and she is winning. The Bernies believe that the can hide that fact and then say it was the SDs who gave her the win. Don't let them.

[KelleyD]

85. All they have are their insults and voter fraud fantasies!