Bernie can NO LONGER mathematically win the nomination - it's over

[Corporate666]

There are 933 delegates up for grabs after today.

Bernie currently has 1318.

You need 2382 to win the nomination. Bernie is short by 1064.

Even if he wins every remaining state with 100% of the vote, he STILL does not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Even if we add in the super delegates he has won thus far, he STILL cannot get enough delegates in the remaining contests to win the nomination, even if he wins 100% of the popular vote in every remaining state.


Time for him to concede to the superior candidate and head home.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Not about winning, it is about making real change

If he had entered the race solely based on winning, he would not have entered.

[Gomez163]

3. They have those at the bank.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

5. You dont want single payer?

[Gomez163]

12. I already am a single payer.

[Demsrule86]

81. Bernie has no shot at giving anyone single payer

But if Trump gets in my daughter loses her health insurance...Bernie is now irrelevant. We needed him until California if the GOP contest continued to protect the down ballot California races...but now that the GOP has their candidate ...it is over.

[JDPriestly]

22. We want to campaign and vote in California, and Bernie has the money and the

volunteers to do that.

So I don't think he will quit. I think he plans to let us have the chance to vote.

Anything can happen between now and the convention. I want Bernie to be ready for any eventuality at the convention no matter the outcome of the Indiana and California and Oregon primaries.

Hillary is a very vulnerable, very troubled candidate. She has lots of problems even if she wins the votes to prevail at the convention. Bernie should keep in the race.

Let us out here in California vote.

[CorporatistNation]

69. He Does Not HAVE To Win The Delegate Contest 2383.. Just Keep Her From Hitting 2383 In Pledged...

Delegates... That's all! Then the onus is on the SUPERS ALONE who have to decide iif THEY want to put up a CERTAIN Loser in the general... OR... A CERTAIN WINNER! I'm being NICE about it! She cannot get the indys in a primary so HOW is she going to win in a general when EVERYONE CAN VOTE? Hillary ain't happen'in in the General... So Bernie will WIN the Nomination based on SIMPLE REALITY!!!!

[Demsrule86]

82. Again the supers vote with the candidate that has the most delegats

She wil have the most delegates...there is no magic number. He is out.

[KittyWampus]

4. you don't create change by stoking anger and cynicism. Nor by claiming your opponent

is cheating.

[Ned_Devine]

9. You create change by taking millions from the Wall St. banks that tanked the economy in '08, right?

[rhett o rick]

128. We are fighting the corruption of big money that you are embracing. Heaven

help the poor if Goldman-Sachs wins.

[Ned_Devine]

6. True

[brush]

7. So how does losing accomplish that?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

10. Oh, if you have to ask that then you dont know anything about politics or movement politics

[brush]

14. Check. A non-answer.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

16. No, it is an answer. But then you arent being sincere in the first place.

[artislife]

73. OT

I owe you an apology. I see you standing up for Bernie and I have been critical of you in the past.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

140. Thanks.

[Corporate666]

17. When does the "real change" come?

Because the voters have already rejected his platform. They DO NOT WANT him as their candidate.

He's going to stand up at the convention and give a speech supporting Clinton. Then he's going to go back home to Vermont and fade into obscurity.

Just like Gore.

Just like Dean.

Just like John Edwards.

Just like Dennis Kucinich.

Just like Bob Kerrey.



The idea that he didn't run for the nomination to become the nominee and then the President is laughable. Just a rationalization by supporters to delude themselves into believing he didn't "really" lose.

Except he did.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

19. So the people dont want single payer and education and infrastructure? You would be very wrong

Bernie blew it with certain demographics, his fault entirely, but his message is the one people want.

[Corporate666]

33. Your own post proves the claim wrong

If people wanted his message, they would have voted for him.

The claim that he "blew it with certain demographics" is just a veiled way of saying "certain groups" are too stupid to know what's good for them.

I reject that theory. People are perfectly capable of deciding which candidate supports their beliefs and agenda, and they have willfully chosen to reject Sanders and choose Clinton.


Bernie is not "single payer, education and infrastructure". He has specific plans for those issues that are not realistic, affordable or economically viable. The people are smart enough to see through that and realize he's lying to them, and rejected him as their candidate.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

34. Oh no, the groups who didnt vote for him shouldn't have, for good reason.

Dont make the mistake of thinking you know about this and I dont.

That would be comical.

He didnt deserve their vote and didnt get it.

[timmymoff]

119. Considering Hillary co-opted

half his policies, I'd say his message definitely won, in every state. You may need to ignore this though, it won't fit your narrative of inevitability.

[4nic8em]

78. If the presumptive

nominee (Hillary) wins the general election, can she keep her personal email server in the whitehouse? Just curious...

[Hortensis]

30. Okay, then time for Bernie to pivot to his LEGACY.

He needs to protect the national persona he has created and continue to build his leadership, not dissipate it in a stubborn refusal to accept that he cannot somehow take the election away from a liberal, capitalism-supporting, thus-by-his-definition-corrupt Democrat.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

31. Maybe...it is a tough call for him, he doesnt want to alienate those who support him.

[Hortensis]

38. Of course not. But don't you think he would

do best to promise them that he and they will continue to work for real change, that losing this one election is not at all the end? And mean it? Continuing to push for stronger change?

You're right that his anti-Democrat followers, probably his most devoted base, must be satisfied. But MOST of his followers are liberals, and aggressive strategies that would work well for his anti-Democrats would be likely to cause his pro-Democrat liberals to turn away. They very definitely do not want a mud fight at the convention.

[artislife]

71. Who cares about legacy when you are living in the moment

Proudly, Bernie has fought every day like it mattered, not trying to craft something that is nebulous like legacy. That is what other people decide what you are. It is a crap term.

[Hortensis]

77. "Proudly," Sanders has voted with the Democrats

he despises over 95% of the time for his entire quarter century in Congress. Sanders has been a moderate Democrat judged by year after year of consistent running with the Democratic crowd, just not by verbiage.

You may not like the term "legacy," artislife, but you should hope Sanders guards what he has achieved thus far so that he does not go down in history as just a hypocritical, fraudulent gadfly. One of the political jokers who surfaced in this weird election.

"Nebulous" is working for Bernie right now. Best for him that his real record stays that way.

[artislife]

90. He has always been focused on what is best for others

and focused at the task at hand. This is why he can answer a question directly and this is why he can go against the conventional wisdom, he knows he is a part of the whole.

He will not go down badly by those who follow him and those who are not in this struggle at this moment.

But honestly, we got maybe 200 more years of people worrying about history.

[Hortensis]

130. He is extremely invested in his ideology, true.

And his True Believers are extremely invested in him, currently. But I wouldn't hold my breath that both they and the other, very large majority of his support doesn't move on if he is not able to continue as a strong leader. His reputation is critical to that.

[artislife]

139. The movement was there first

We weren't happy with idea that we would only have Hillary to represent the left side of the country. We have been seeing how the difference in the machine that runs this country is paying less attention to the people, the environment and to just causes can use either the Republicans or the Democrats with ease.

Occupy happened, and then went underground into causes. It didn't go away as people like to believe. The idea that we could do things on a national level took a beating. But then there was this woman in Congress who started to champion some of our issues. Not choosing her words wisely, lest she dries up her funding or loses future votes and that spark a unity to appear across the grassroots of this nation.

We tried to draft Warren. It really isn't about Bernie, but someone who would cut through the shit and just tell it like it is. She was the media darling. But she wouldn't run. We all thought someone should and one of us was Bernie.

The upset with so much in this country didn't start with his campaign. You see it on the other side with Trump.

A lot of people are sick of the machine and it won't go away if Trump or Sanders lose. I promise you that.

It could be easy or hard, but it is going to be.

[Baobab]

36. Because of fast track it IS about winning because there wont be the ability to make changes if Clint

on wins and signs us onto another GATS. (Also read the paper in my .sig)

[Demsrule86]

80. No Now that Cruz is out and Trump is in

Time to beat Trump. No need to stay until California now. Time for Bernie to concede. He can not win.

[Demsrule86]

132. Right

Does he want to elect Trump? That is the sort of change his staying in can effect.

[egalitegirl]

2. Who is the backup in case FBI spoils Hillary's chances?

Should Bernie remain in the race in case FBI destroys Hillary's chances? If not, who do you think should be the backup candidate?

[Ash_F]

11. Can Dems even substitute someone else after the convention?

I have asked it before but no one seems to know.

[egalitegirl]

18. That is what I want to know too

I have no idea of the rules and no one seems to have an idea. If they agree it will be Bernie, then I see a reason to negotiate it. If their backup is Biden or someone else, I understand why Bernie would stay on.

[fun n serious]

25. It's never happened

According to the rules... if it did happen ( it won't but I will entertain) It will be contested, go to a brokered convention and Dems could put in Biden or go with Bernie.. no one knows until the convention what they will do

[Ash_F]

32. As in a second convention?

I was talking about after the nominee is picked.

[unc70]

125. It happened after convention with VP nominee Eagleton

A total mess, but it happened and Eagleton was replaced.

[Demsrule86]

83. why would they?

Clinton will be Trump.

[Ash_F]

84. "Clinton will be Trump."

Freudian slip?

[ozone_man]

86. If Hillary is no longer viable

and rules prohibit another Democrat from running, Bernie could run as an Independent. Interesting option to think about.

[Ash_F]

93. Thanks. Is there a cut-off date for registering to run in November?

[Demsrule86]

135. Sure he could

And he could help elect President Trump...maybe he should be Trump's VP?

[fun n serious]

15. That is a NON issue.

Who is paying you to post?

[egalitegirl]

20. See post 18

Please see post 18 and please provide useful information instead of getting mad. It is all speculation anyway and why should I not speculate the reason for Bernie staying on in the race?

[Botany]

26. Give it up

http://www.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-385853

Nothing is there to this smear campaign.

[frylock]

51. This is about the mail server, not Benghazi.

Try and keep up, mkay?

[Botany]

60. the mail server came up because they found nothing on Benghazi

hillary sent emails and her email account had a server so f***ing what?

all email accounts have servers.

Start Reading @ The Truth About Clinton’s Emails


But government records show that no hacker has been found to have gained access to Clinton’s private server, something that is far easier to determine given the limited number of accounts it holds and the comparative ease of running security analytics through such a small system. Nor was there any other form of unauthorized intrusion into the email, and no one else had access to the account itself. In fact, after Clinton left government, multiple hackers tried to break into the system but failed. The server was located at Clinton’s home, which is guarded by the Secret Service. Numerous security consultants, IT specialists and government experts put systems in place to prevent breaches; those systems were continuously updated to account for new spyware, malware, viruses and related hacking techniques.

[frylock]

89. So fucking what if the SoS was using an offsite, homebrewed mail server.

So fucking what if she did that to circumvent FOIA requests. So fucking what if she tried to circumvent FOIA requests to hide the fact that foreign governments were donating millions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for weapons deals. So fucking what.

[Matt_R]

116. She is better than us. "Above the law" if you will.

[Botany]

131. Don't you know anything?

She had to use an "an offsite, homebrewed mail server" because Vince Foster
needed one to help run cocaine for Walmart. She paid for it with money she
got from Monsanto and the Wall Street.

[Shandris]

8. Ah, well, I'm sure he'll listen to someone whose name so clearly demonstrates his loyalty.

Do get back to us when you figure out from where authority is derived. Once you have derived some from that same source, do come back and inform us so that we can inform Bernie that it's 'time'. Thanks in advance!

[Corporate666]

21. Maybe my name

means that I think corporations are evil?

Are you always so judgmental that you believe you know everything about someone based on their name? Or the color of their skin? Or their race? Or gender?

Or are you so bigoted that you don't care what their opinions are, you just reject everything from everyone who doesn't march in lock-step with you?

And do you always attack people who say things that, while true, are things you don't like to hear?

As for authority... the democratic party dictates the election rules. 2382 delegate votes are needed to win the nomination.

There are not enough delegate votes available in the upcoming races to give Sanders the win. He is now mathematically eliminated. Even if he wins 100% of all remaining states, he will not secure enough delegates to win.

It's over.

[bjo59]

58. It's very strange for a Clinton supporter to mark the corporate leviathan with a 666.

[CentralCoaster]

13. Oh nonsense. Stop it, there are several paths to a Sanders win.

We've been hearing the same crap from the same people about inevitability since last fall.

[Corporate666]

24. Well winning the nomination by winning primaries and amassing delegates is not one of them... guess

that means the BS'ers are holding out for an FBI indictment or something?


When your candidate's "path to victory" requires the opposition to go to jail, you know you have no path to victory.

I mean - maybe a meteorite will fall from the sky and hit her on the head and take her out. Could happen! Sanders better stay in, just in case!

[onenote]

23. Sarcasm or bad math?

Hard to tell. Maybe both.

[Corporate666]

27. The numbers are right in the first post.

He can no longer mathematically win, period.

It's over.

[onenote]

53. No they are not

Your number subtracts the 83 Indiana delegates up for grabs today but assumes Bernie gets none of them.
But even more significantly, if you add his 1318 delegates to the 933 up for grabs after tonight (your math) he is at 2251 he is 132 shy of 2383. But he has 41 super delegates and there are still 175 super delegates that haven't declared (and one that declared for O'Malley that could go anywhere). He would need 91 of those supers to get to the magic number. And that's still assuming, unrealistically, that he gets zero delegates in Indiana.

So even if you treat super delegates that have declared as bound (which they may be practically but not technically), Sanders is still not "mathematically eliminated since you cannot assume none of the remaining super delegates will support him. And that's still allowing for your error with respect to the Indiana delegates.

Do I think its likely that Sanders will get the nomination? Absolutely not. But you are mistaken if you think he has been "mathematically" eliminated.
Apparently bad math isn't limited to Sanders supporters.

[Corporate666]

62. Incorrect

Tonight's results don't affect the truthfulness of the OP.

Yes, he is at 2251 if he took ALL remaining delegates, still short by 132. According to RCP he has 39 super delegates, but even using the 41 number, that leaves him short by 91.

There are only 83 delegates up for grabs today, so even if he won 100% of IN's delegates, he is still mathematically eliminated from getting the nomination.

Of course, if you want to add in super delegates, then the numbers just get worse for Bernie - because that means Clinton has only shy by 217 delgates. She's doing to pick up 45 or so tonight, leaving here around 170-175 short.

You can't have it both ways. Either super delegates count in which case Bernie has to get over 1,000 more delegates before Clinton gets 170 or so, or they don't count in which case he has already mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination, regardless of what happens from here on out.

[onenote]

91. I don't think you understand the concept of "mathematically" eliminated.

It seemed like you did, but now you are shifting.

Mathematical elimination occurs when there is not possible way to get to a result. Thus even if the likelihood approaches zero, until it is at zero, it is "mathematically" possible.

And you are the one who is inconsistently counting supers.

Basic math using updated numbers: there are a total of 4765 delegates: 4051 pledged, 714 super. (source: thegreenpapers.com)

When a candidate has 2383, the other candidate is "mathematically eliminated."

Out of the 4051 pledged delegates, Clinton has won 1663, Sanders 1367 (source: NY Times)
That means there are 1021 pledged delegates available going into tonight's contest. There will be 83 fewer pledged delegates available after tonight leaving 938.

In addition, out of the 712 supers, 520 have committed to Clinton and 39 to Sanders. While those commitments are not binding, we will treat them as such. That means there there are only 153 supers available.

To get to 2383 Sanders would have to pick up some combination of pledged and supers totaling 1016. There were 1021 pledged and 153 super = 1174 delegates still up for grabs going into tonight. After tonight there will be 938 pledged and 153 super = 1091 available, and thus he still will not be "mathematically" eliminated, at least not as that term is commonly understood.

Again, I don't think there is any chance Sanders secures the necessary delegates. But he's not "mathematically" eliminated yet.

[bigwillq]

28. It's over on both sides.

The D and R party has to nominate Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump. It's what the majority of the voters want.

Anything else could splinter the parties.

[Corporate666]

35. Agreed

And both candidates will move towards the center, and then the electorate will decide who best represents their beliefs and ideals.

There's not much chance that person will be Trump, but we'll see.

[Loudestlib]

55. You know that the pledged delegates are different than the total delegates.

Right?

[nolawarlock]

29. You are just giving into the one percent.

And you're smart to do it if it's this one percent...

[liberalnarb]

37. You are extremely hateful. I don't get it.

And that sig line is way over the top

[bunnies]

43. 9 goddamn hides and still allowed to post.

Worst decision skinner has ever made.

[moriah]

44. I'm attempting to mentor him, but there has been some farking HATEFUL crap said...

... about Hillary here, and if a new poster is trying to understand the Community Standards when this is the "standard"....

[bunnies]

47. I agree with you. But I really think this new "standard" sucks.

Three times today I've deleted posts that would have earned me my first hide. The baiting makes me crazy. And now no reprocussions.

[moriah]

50. It really does suck. Nt

[Warren DeMontague]

98. "New"? If some of these cars havent been through the carwash before, I'm a Range Rover.

And im not a range rover.

[moriah]

108. Well, accusations like that...

Ended up leading the poster to self-reveal, and in doing such drove another long-term poster to search him out, find a negative news story about him, then posting it. Which got a deserved hide.

Hence why under old rules, that was a distinct and defined personal attack -- to accuse anyone of being a shill, disruptor, etc.

So we, and MIR/Admin, have this account connected with the real person( and admin his IP address). Like any other concerns that someone is a disruptor, isn't the proper response to report to MIRT/Admin?

[Warren DeMontague]

113. I don't know which specific incident you are referring to-

That said, you and I both know this place has more zombies running around than an episode of the walking dead. it's not exactly breaking news.

And I won't apologize for having zero patience for that shit. I've managed to make it here for 12 years under one account- without getting banned, and all my words are my own responsibility, no games, hiding, or obfuscation.

Beyond that, to my mind, when someone is clearly trying to stir shit and inflame the board right out the gate, they lose the claim to benefit of the doubt.

[moriah]

114. I'm just saying, leaving investigations of such to our worthy MIR team...

... who can still discuss more than just-registered single dugit post trump humpers we try to get rid of ASAP.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Indeed, and I begged off this term because I've got other shit to worry about.

but having seen the images that some random unspecified posters -who shall remain only vaguely and generally alluded to in a sort of nonspecific fashion- have had smeared all over their sigs over the past few weeks, I stand by every word here.

[moriah]

48. Also, this user was personally attacked in ways that never ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511883321

... would have been acceptable on the old DU, including a poster searching out his real name (after being accused of shilling and deciding to put his real name in his profile) and posting unflattering news articles about him.

Seriously, if something is going to rile a poster into being hateful, long-time posters practicing the art of "master baiting" and then posting things about their personal life might.

[bunnies]

54. That should never have happened either.

I didn't see it, but I've been here less and less. The assholery is over the top all over this board. So many great long time DUers are gone now and nobody seems to care. I just can't stand it.

[moriah]

59. Yes, the assholery must stop.

On all sides.

I didn't link to the hidden post because I want to believe the poster, around since 2003, is not actually a bad person. I can PM if you like, or you can search, but unless they see this and self-reveal to agree they were contributing to the assholery and do a mea culpa, I see no reason to call him out publicly.

[bunnies]

65. I understand & appreciate the reason you didn't link to the post.

I've been disappointed by a lot of long timers this cycle. I first joined in 04 (new name & puter in 08) and I've never seen it this horrible. I really miss DU2.

I've really felt like democrats are not on the same side this time. That's a first.

[nolawarlock]

61. Hateful?

When did honesty become hate. He's lost. When did it become bad manners to describe reality?

[nolawarlock]

63. Moreover...

... since we're talking about signatures, yours goes from "A Future to Believe" in to a "Future to STILL Believe in." Clearly, on some level, you must know this candidate is circling the drain.

[liberalnarb]

87. My sig line stays positive, boosts my candidate, doesn't tear anyone elses down.

Your sig line pic about the "Berd" is just in bad taste.

[nolawarlock]

95. I think it's election humor, but either way it's gone.

I only ever put the fun ones there due to bogus hides anyway. I haven't gotten any in a couple days. We'll see how it rolls.

[nolawarlock]

75. There. As a favor to Moriah, I changed my sig to something more positive. nt

[liberalnarb]

88. You responded to me three times, this is getting obsessive.

[nolawarlock]

94. LOL. Well I can always put it back. I liked the other sig better anyway. nt

[liberalnarb]

96. What did I say that made you come to that conclusion?

[nolawarlock]

97. Really?

I'll move along now, thank you.

[moriah]

42. I haven't seen the sig line because I am on mobile, but I must agree this is unnecessary.

Would you self-delete, and remove the sig line, to try to show that you are capable of taking the high road here?

Thanks.

[nolawarlock]

64. I'm not sure what the hullaballoo is.

It's the tamest one I've had.

[angrychair]

129. Motive

You have been a member of this site for 47 days and posted 1,056 times? That is ~22 post a day, 7 days a week, since you joined. You have also accumulated 9 hides during that time, that's averaging a hide every 5 days since you joined.

You have a very clear agenda.

There is not a lot of guessing what you agenda is here.

[nolawarlock]

142. Agenda?

Whatever are you suggesting?

[lancer78]

39. What if by some way

when all the voting is done, he has more pledged delegates then HRC?

[ColesCountyDem]

141. What history tells us about that:

The superdelegates have never failed to vote in favor of the candidate who arrives at the convention with the most pledged delegates-- never.

[moriah]

40. Hillary didn't concede in 2008 even when the statistics were against her.

Each candidate deserves to get to campaign in each state, and each voter deserves to be heard.

From what her letter to the Superdelegates in late May said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/clinton_letter_to_superdelegat.html

Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.

Bernie, with a little more hyped language but it was a presser rather than text, still expressed the same idea when he said that he would do whatever he had to to avoid a GOP presidency whether he wins or not.

[Demsrule86]

133. The circumstances were different

First of all, she won the popular vote in 08. Secondly, the Florida delegates and Michigan delegates which she won were not seated as they broke party rules. Thus, Hillary was treated more unfairly than Sanders despite the whining. However, in June she conceded and endorsed. She and bill helped elect Pres. Obama. Here in Ohio, they were amazing.

[moriah]

144. Still, the GOP had a nominee and we were still fighting.

Plus, her popular vote argument is specious IMHO, as Wiki analyzed thoroughly.

Our primaries were far closer together, and the results were closer too, but I can't as a Hillary supporter criticize Bernie for things my candidate did. It's actually rather ironic to see Hillary using Obama's argument that SDs should follow the pledged delegate winner enough to give them the majority in total delegates needed, Bernie using Hillary's argument about polls and electability.

But we have at least 9 primaries left, correct? Let the people vote....

[lancer78]

41. Hillary is not superior

She lost to an unknown Illinois Senator in 2008 and is only winning pledged delegates by 10% in 2016 against someone who only became a democrat 6 months ago.

Her campaigning abilities are in the league of Mondale and Martha Coakley.

[TM99]

45. What the fuck are you smoking?

The Green Paper has Sanders at 1370 and Clinton at 1665 as of today.

Currently in Indiana, she is ahead by less than one percent. Even if she were to win at this rate, the 83 delegates will all but be split because it is a proportional primary and she is not even close to being 15 points ahead.

So neither of them have the number of delegates needed to win. And even if you factor in the SD's, Clinton still does not win today.

Go away with your propaganda and bullshit.

Let me guess, low post count, full of shit, and likely on a payroll somewhere.

[Corporate666]

67. Time to accept reality

Sanders has been mathematically eliminated.

Even if he wins every single remaining primary by 100%, he will not have enough votes to win the nomination.

That's a fact.


Do you want to add in super delegates? Because if you do, then Clinton only needs around 170 more delegates to secure the nomination after tonight.

Pick your preference. Either Sanders is mathematically eliminated, or he has to get over 1,000 more delegates before Clinton gets ~170 more.

You can choose between a mathematical impossibility and a statistical impossibility - whatever helps you sleep at night. However, one thing is for sure. Sanders no longer has any possible way to win the nomination.

It's over.

[TM99]

76. Yes, here is the wonderful reality

I have chosen.

Sanders has not won with the pledged delegates. Clinton has not won with the pledged delegates. So we move forward. And we keep doing this until the convention. Then we see what a good old fashion convention floor fight is like as the corporatists such as yourself are face to face with the New Deal progressives vying for control.

Y'all may just come out on top, and y'all will most likely lose without us emo-progs, unicorn-loving, 'free stuff' hippies.

Reality is about to hit y'all up side the head so hard it will send you to the fucking moon.

And I will giggle with glee at all of the pronouncements of certainty, math, and inevitability that are suddenly swallowed like really delicious crow.

[Tiggeroshii]

46. If you need that many pledged delegates, it's true for Clinton too. But you are misrepresenting

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

...the required delegates. 2026 is required for the majority pledged delegates. Stop pretending Hillary could still win without that. Bernie will need 65% of the remaining delegates to get it. So far it isn't looking too bad.

[George II]

57. I think he was using Devine/Weaver math, that's the number THEY keep using.

[Tiggeroshii]

66. Very double-standards ish. Because it's saying that he isn't allowed to court delegates and use them

toward his victory, but she's allowed to keep all of hers and take the nomination even if she doesn't win the majority?

[George II]

68. No one said he isn't allowed to try to flip delegates, but it's very obvious......

.....that they're not going to succeed.

What majority are you talking about now?

[Corporate666]

72. Wait a moment...

I keep hearing that Clinton won't get the required delegates before the convention.

Either super delegates count or they don't.

If they do, then she is going to be around 170 or so shy of the nomination after tonight, with 1,149 delegates left to win after tonight.

If they don't count, then Sanders is mathematically eliminated already and can not secure the nomination, period.


The BS'ers have promoted an alternate reality where HRC needs 2382 pledged delegates, but Sanders just needs a majority of them. That is having one's cake and eating it too - and it doesn't work that way.

If you believe the claim (that has no evidence to support it) that super delegates will back the winner of a plurality of pledged delegates, then I do not see how it's "not looking too bad". A couple of weeks back, Sanders needed something like 53%. After NY, it was more like 58%. Now he is down by around 325 pledged delegates with 933 left to win, meaning he would need to win 66% of the remaining vote.

Every state that he wins less than 66% is a net loss, because it means he has to increase his margin in successive states. He doesn't need to win 66% sometimes, or occasionally, but that must be his average.

As I type this, Indiana is 48/52 in favor of Sanders. Which if it stays that way, is a net loss. He needed to win 63-65% of the vote tonight, which means he is further behind than he was on Monday.

It's a time and a distance race, remember.

[Tiggeroshii]

138. If she gets 2026 pledged but is short of 2383 she wins with supers. If not, Bernie will take them.

In the time until the convention. No candidate has ever EVER won without the majority of pledged delegates, since supers have been around.

Supers only effectively count insofar that the candidate is winning pledged delegates and not deemed by the party as unwinnable due to -say, an FBI investigation or something.

Clinton withdrew in June of 2008 after not getting enough pledged delegates. The same will happen with the candidate who doesn't make that mark this time as well. Regardless of what either one says.

[longship]

49. Blah de blah de blah blah de blah de blah de blah!

Blah blah blah de blah de blah!

A simple question:
What does one gain by such blah de blah de blah?

Maybe... It's her turn! Bush, Clinton, Bush (Obama...) Clinton.

After all, the US presidency is a family affair, disconnected from issues. IT'S HER TURN!!!!

I think we've heard that before.

IT'S OUR TURN!!!!

[Peregrine Took]

52. Wow - thanks so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule

to tell us that.

[LenaBaby61]

56. Looking good for a Sanders win in Indiana ...

However, he would have needed a HUGE win over Hillary Clinton to make any type of dent in her delegate lead. That's not going to happen, so Hillary and Bernie move on basically where they were before Indiana's vote tonight.

[Corporate666]

112. Not where they were...

It is a time *and* a distance race, don't forget.

If there were unlimited time and an unlimited number of delegates available, then Sanders could afford to tie with HRC and pick up a delegate here or there. But he has no such luxury... he MUST win by 20-30 point margins in every race. Every time he fails to do so, he is further behind because there are less delegates left and the percentage he needs grows.

BS is worse off today than he was yesterday. He fell further behind.

[LenaBaby61]

121. You're right ....

I phrased that totally wrong and was rushing, because as you rightfully say, they're not "exactly" where they were on 5-2-2016 (Sanders fell further behind Clinton this evening per the AP due to them having to split the delegates almost evenly), also as you said, for Bernie Sanders to even have a chance, he has to run up huge margins vs Hillary Clinton in EVERY remaining state, and flip Super Delegates like mad, and as I said in another post, that's not likely to happen in either case because Bernie Sanders is not going to win every state remaining, and Super Delegates are not going to do a "Mass Exodus" from Hillary Clinton and to Bernie Sanders.

So yes, you're right: Bernie is worse off (5-3-2016) today than yesterday (5-2-2016).

Time is running out on Bernie Sanders.

[artislife]

70. Not yet,

Oregon and California want to join the Western Bernie front.

[Squinch]

74. Yes, of course it is over. It has realistically been over for a long time. And wasn't this point -

the point where there were not enough delegates to make up the shortfall - wasn't that when Hillary conceded in 08? Why, yes. Yes, I believe it was.

It came somewhat later in the campaign because Hillary was always so much closer in delegates to Obama than Sanders has EVER been to Hillary.

[srobert]

79. THAT IS A LIE.

Who do you believe? Me, When I tell you that there are over 1200 delegates available? or a guy whose name is Corporate666? The superdelegates have not voted yet, despite what you hear on CNN, MSNBC, or here from Hillary's supporters. If Bernie does win a majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates should be reluctant to oppose a democratic majority. A Bernie Win IS still mathematically possible. If you haven't voted yet, please ignore the efforts of those who wish to convince you otherwise.

P.S. Even if it were mathematically impossible. I would still cast my vote for Bernie in the primary, because it is important to tell Democrats, that they've been going in the wrong direction.

[Corporate666]

107. So your belief is...

that if someone has a name that "sounds bad" to you, then they are not to be trusted, even when they are telling the truth?


Sort of like the people that kept harping on about Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

What did you think of those people back then? Now look in a mirror and tell me the difference.



As for Bernie, he's mathematically excluded. There are not enough delegates left available to win to take him to 2382. He's lost. It's over. He's mathematically excluded.

[srobert]

115. What is Your Source of Information?

If you were telling the truth, I'd ignore the fact that your name sounds bad.
But you're not. I don't really know if you're not telling the truth because you believe what you say, or because you are deliberately misleading, but what you are saying is not true either way.
Where did you get the numbers you're putting out?

Here are the facts:
It takes 2,383 delegates to win the democratic party's nomination out of a total 4,765.
Bernie Sanders has won 1,360 pledged delegates (as of tonight with his win in Indiana).
Hillary Clinton has won 1,682 pledged delegates. The super delegates have not yet voted.
Counting their, as yet uncast votes, there are 1,723 delegate votes that have yet to be cast.

Of the 1,723 uncast delegates 559 of those are superdelegates leaving 1,164 uncast pledged delegates. That number changed from my original post because I wasn't counting Indiana yet.

Many of the superdelegates have stated whom they will support, but should Sanders overcome Clinton's current lead of 322 pledged delegates, which is entirely possible with 1,164 to go, I have a hard time imagining that the superdelegates would turn against the will of the majority of the voters.

Bottom line is Hillary's supporters are spreading misinformation about the math involved, either out of ignorance or deliberate deception. Which is it in your case?

[Corporate666]

120. You're wrong

And your excuse for attacking someone based on semantics and not substance is weak. You failed to explain how it is any different than those that bashed Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I will accept that as acknowledgement that you are doing precisely the same thing.

Now, on to your wrong numbers.

There are 4763 total delegates, not 4765. It takes 2382 to win the nomination. Sanders has 1361. There are 933 remaining to be won - your 1164 number is wrong, you are counting super delegates.

So based on the correct numbers, Sanders is mathematically excluded. He CANNOT win the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination. That is a fact.

Now if you want to bring super delegates into the mix, then Clinton is ahead 2202 to 1400. 2382 are needed to win the nomination, which means that Clinton needs 180 out of the remaining 1161 delegates available, whereas Sanders would need 982 of the remaining 1161.

So you can choose how you want to accept reality.

If you are in the "super delegates don't count" camp, then BS is mathematically excluded.

If you are in the "super delegates count" camp, then Sanders has to win 86% of the remaining delegates in order to win.

So Sanders is either mathematically eliminated or realistically eliminated, depending on whether you believe supers count or not.



You appear to be trying to occupy a completely invented and fantastical piece of ground where super delegates who have stated they will vote for HRC don't count, but those who have stated they will vote for BS DO count, and where super delegates should be awarded on the basis of percentage of the state won, except in states where Bernie lost, in which case they should be free to vote for Bernie under an implausible series of circumstances that aren't going to happen.

I even heard Bernie right now on CNN saying that super delegates should all go to the winning candidate "in states that were won by landslides" (i.e. in the states he won by a lot) but should be awarded proportionally in states where the vote was closer. Even the man himself is coming up with contorted logic about why he's really winning when he's already lost.

[srobert]

124. Fair Enough. Here's some sources for my information.

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Fair enough. Your name is not relevant. I will not attack you again on the basis of your name. But with each response you post you discredit yourself further. Let me introduce some substance to my attack.

My numbers are verified by:

https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_National_Convention,_2016
http://www.270towin.com/2016-democratic-nomination/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Convention

4,765. Is the correct number for total delegates. The sources above will verify.

How about this one?
https://www.google.com/search?q=primary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#eob=m.09c7w0/D/5/short/m.09c7w0/
That will verify the number of pledged delegates that have been cast so far. 1,164 has now changed to 1,163 as of 9:25 PM. That's the number of pledged delegates yet to have been cast. None of the superdelegates 559 votes will count until the convention when they are actually cast.

4765 Total Delegates
- 1682 Hillary's Pledged delegates
- 1361 Bernie's Pledged delegates
_______________________________
= 1722 Uncast delegates
- 559 Superdelegates
_______________________________
= 1163 Remaining delegates

Bernie is behind by 321.

That's where my numbers come from.
So where do your numbers come from?
Because it seems to me that you're just pulling them out of your butt.

[Garrett78]

123. After tonight, Sanders now needs more than 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to reach 2026.

Which is a slightly greater percentage than he needed before Indiana. CA and NJ account for more than half of the remaining delegates. Technically speaking, of course he *could* win. Practically speaking, this race was essentially over in mid-March.

[Zen Democrat]

85. If it were over, you wouldn't be posting such tripe. If you're confident, go smoke a cigar.

[dana_b]

92. lol... you're funny...

Nope! To the convention!!! Don't like it? Oh well.

[Corporate666]

109. Of course to the convention...

Bernie will be expected to make a speech where he praises Clinton, emphatically backs her qualifications, her policies and her character, and pledges his unwavering support to the victor.

What he's not going to do, however, is to go the convention for any other reason than to pledge support for HRC.

That's just how this process works.

[Raine]

99. or NOT!!!!

Feel the Bern!!!!

[morningfog]

100. Utter bullshit.

[Jester Messiah]

101. Nah.

Thanks for the offer though.

[Trajan]

102. More Brockian crap ...

Gonzo ...

[MFM008]

103. keeping Frankenstein animated

Each jolt keeps it alive to die another day.

[northernsouthern]

104. You do know what math is right?

Neither of them can win now unless there is an upset...like the one today that he beat the projections on. Hillary's bribed officials may help her win.

[Hoyt]

105. I keep thinking of the last WWII Japanese soldier who surrendered in 1974.

[snowy owl]

106. Who cares? Only you. Tiresome.

[Corporate666]

110. That says it all....

BS'ers don't care that Sanders can no longer mathematically win the nomination.


Of all the rationales posted for BS losing, the "well we weren't here to win so we don't care that we lost" is the most laughable of all. Of course a competition is about winning. Nobody runs for President to lose or to talk about pet issues or to get to see more of America. They run to win. Make no mistake about why BS was running. It was to win. And it didn't happen.

[HERVEPA]

111. Time for you to head home

[Logical]

118. Every Tuesday we hear this shit and every next Tuesday Bernie wins a state

[Demsrule86]

134. So? If you look back

Hillary won quite a few states at the end. It did not change the math...she won the popular vote, she won delegates that were not seated (Florida and Michigan broke party rules) and polls showed her beating McCain. The supers were unmoved. She did not go to the convention which would end Bernie's career by the way and not in a good way. She conceded and endorsed in a magnificent speech in June.

[aikoaiko]

122. And yet he is stilling campaigning - go figure.

[sueh]

126. The primariy elections are Not. Over. Yet. EVERYONE has the right to cast their ballot!

[Demsrule86]

136. They are over

And every presidential year there are states that don't matter...who vote after the nominee has won by delegate math.

[live love laugh]

127. No fool like an old fool

.

[LWolf]

137. NO.

Millions of us have not yet voted. We don't want you silencing us.

[NurseJackie]

143. So many things to love about this post!

[KingCharlemagne]

145. if sge is indicted before the Cobvention, herSupers will

dump her in a heartbeat.

This OP is a massive, EPIC, fail.

DU unrec.