Steve Kornacki Explains Why HRC Won't Get Enough Pledged Delegates to Get Nom Even After California

[amborin]

https://www.facebook.com/susan.sanders.35325/videos/636912853123585/

(apparently they took this video down and expunged it! not what msnbc wants anyone to know)

[grasswire]

1. so we can make it seen

get it out to facebook, twitter, etc.

Headline: MSNBC's Kornacki agrees with Sanders: Clinton will NOT go to convention with a lock on delegates.

[amborin]

4. yes, please make it go viral; this is not what the M$M, and especially MSNBC, wants anyone to see

[Garrett78]

57. Uh, the video is *from* MSNBC.

I'm reminded of the thread on the night of the Indiana primary, which claimed there's no media coverage of Bernie's victory. Even though every major news source had a headline about his victory. Peeps need to get a grip on reality.

And nobody is arguing that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. DU is littered with straw men.

[amborin]

120. yes, but they removed if from their website

[Garrett78]

122. People here, including myself, watched the video after you made that claim.

If it was down momentarily, it was a temporary glitch. This was nothing more than a straw man argument anyway. The point of the video was that Clinton isn't likely to reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. But nobody was disputing that point.

[wallyworld2]

53. RIP Sanders

[grasswire]

67. you do know that "Wallyworld" is a FOX personality? nt

[wallyworld2]

70. No I did not know that

Just my freaking luck

[silvershadow]

2. K&R nt

[Peace Patriot]

3. Thanks for this, amborin! I clicked on it and it played. This MSNBC vid is AMAZING!

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)

What do you mean, they took it down? It's still on Facebook. Do you mean they took it down at MSNBC?

This is IT, isn't it? Steve Kornacki establishes without any question that Clinton CANNOT achieve the 612 more pledged delegates she needs to clinch the nomination, unless she takes about 80% of the remaining states, including 90% to 95% of California. And that is NOT going to happen!

This is the reason for all the hysteria in the Clinton camp, trying to strongarm Sanders out of the race--or to significantly suppress his vote with discouraging LIES. They are just frigging LYING!

Kornacki is very generous in his theoretical numbers that Clinton might get--assumes, for instance, that she gets 50% in likely Bernie states other than California. All his other assumptions are similarly generous, yet she ends up with only 472 of the remaining pledged delegates --not enough!

Sanders is NOT going to withdraw. And Sanders voters are NOT going to be discouraged enough by these lies to make that big a difference. Sanders voters are voting for their lives, at this point. It's Seabiscuit vs War Admiral, and even those who feel hopeless, as Seabiscuit slows down to take his opponent's measure, won't throw their betting tickets away! They'll vote, because these voters are voting ON THE ISSUES. They want to make a point to our benighted Establishment, even if they think we can't win. And the delightful--nay, wondrous--thing is that we CAN win!

Seabiscuit, that funny little horse that the Establishment scorned and ignored, had the heart of a mighty warrior. And, not only that, his astonishing win gave hope and solace to a discouraged and hungry American people in the depths of the Great Depression.

Sanders = Seabiscuit. That's what it looks like to me. And, by God, War Admiral, that over-rated horse, fawned upon by the racing powers, couldn't beat him!

[amborin]

5. yes, Peace Patriot, MSNBC took it down, amazing that Kornacki was permitted to run through the math

Exactly, this is what the hysteria, smears, nastiness, and massive attempts to suppress the vote is all about. The War candidate by no means has a lock on the nomination; it's totally open-ended and will be, even after California!

Love your Seabiscuit analogy!!!

[snowy owl]

6. "War Admiral" - how ironic. CNN panel tonight couldn't wait to conflate Trump protesters with Bernie

[Samantha]

10. Yes, I just watched it and it looks like a brokered convention will happen

Just to reiterate, Hillary would need to capture 612 delegates of the remaining 781 available, not counting superdelegates. That is not going to happen.

So the next time you hear someone say NJ will probably put her over the top and MSNBC will call it before California voting totals are in, LOL and walk away.

The wholesale lying that has been going on in this one area by so many, including the MSM, is staggering.

Sam

[Samantha]

11. He also said Clinton and Sanders are close in CA and that will not put her over the top (eom)

[hack89]

58. It will be over after California

she will have a commanding majority of pledged delegates that Bernie cannot mathematically overcome. The supers will then declare for the candidate with the most pledged delegates like they always have.

[Samantha]

95. According to Kornachi, after the estimated pledged delegates are awarded, she needs to win 95%

of California to make it to her goal. Good luck with that.

Sam

[Demsrule86]

109. She does not need a certain number of pledged delegates to win...

only a majority...Obama did not have a certain number...the supers put him over...I almost feel sorry for you guys. Your hope is not real...you do not understand the process.

[Samantha]

112. I understand that a simple majority can work but I also understand the supers do not count until

the convention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512078890

Bye.

[HarmonyRockets]

126. I don't think you understand how the process works

when you say something like "the supers don't count until the convention." What does this mean? None of the delegates vote until the convention. So the pledged delegates "don't count until the convention" either. The nominee is always officially nominated at the convention. And the system was basically set up so that a candidate won't win with pledged delegates alone. At the end of the primaries in 2008 Obama had a majority of pledged delegates as well, but didn't have enough pledged delegates alone to win the nomination. After he won enough total delegates he was announced by the media as the "presumptive nominee." Yes, none of the delegates "count until the convention." This is why the word "presumptive" is used. Hillary Clinton will be the presumptive nominee on June 7th. If you don't believe me, there is an MSNBC segment that explains why she will be the presumptive nominee quite well. And guess who it is that explains it? Steve Kornachi.

[amborin]

118. Ditto what Samantha says, and, additionally, Obama was not under FBI Investigation

[hack89]

54. It has to go to a second vote to be a brokered convention

Hillary will win on the first vote - the pledged delegates cannot switch who they can vote for and the supers will vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

[Garrett78]

56. Exactly. There are only 2 candidates. 1 of them will reach 2383.

The only way that wouldn't happen is if hundreds of superdelegates abstained from voting.

A lot of folks seem to be confused about the difference between "contested" and "brokered."

[malokvale77]

27. I rec this post.

War Admiral is so appropriate for you know who.

I just sent money to Bernie and his latest 8. I did it in response to an OP on DU praising Alan Dershowitz (Lolita Express frequent flyer) for bashing Bernie.

[amborin]

124. thank you on both counts!!!!!!!

[bjo59]

38. What a great commentary!

[okasha]

94. Remember Secretariat?

[SheilaT]

106. I just took a look at the film of the actual race between

Seabiscuit and War Admiral, and it's pretty fascinating. Throughout most of the race they were pretty much neck and neck, although somewhere in the back stretch it looks like Seabiscuit pulls a head, and he never lets go of the advantage. In the end he won by 4 lengths.

Somehow it feels a lot like this primary season.

[senz]

7. It's exactly as Bernie said. Yet "some" here insist Hill has already won, BUT SHE HASN'T.

What a loathsome thing to say. They simply want to discourage Bernie voters so they'll stay home. Again, what a loathsome tactic.

Now is the time for Bernie voters to put on the heat and win as many final contests as we can!

[grasswire]

8. I sent it to a facebook friend who has a huge following.

Hmm...Will Pitt ought to put it on his feed.

[Samantha]

13. Try to imagine Hillary being President and her running her administration the way she has run

this campaign. How would one ever know which side is up and which is down. It is just like the eight years of Clintons we had in the 90s. Everyday, a fresh new soap opera. I was a Republican during those years, and I became so disgusted I left and became a Democrat. Once I did this, I immediately knew it should have been my decision from the start.

I don't think I can make it another eight years of this insanity. I am just into the issues, solving the problems and leaving the crazy at the curb.

Sam

[Jitter65]

15. So what. She is going to win on the first ballot. So much ado about what?

If you stick to the notion that the supers should vote with their state...then Wash. primary would mean more than it does because it shows that the majority of the people voted for Hillary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. So why the panic?

Amirite?

[malokvale77]

29. Have you noticed...

how they pretend the OIG report doesn't say what it says.

I watched the State Department presser on C-SPAN earlier. Not one reporter cared about anything but the leaked report. The State was not prepared with it's spin yet. It was sad and amusing all at the same time.

PS: I hope the workers win . Thank goodness Bernie insists on counting every vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Finnessing finally a time line

time to finally consider doing a local story.

[malokvale77]

33. I've been enjoying your local reports.

Wish we had similar in Dallas.

Watch your Post Box.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Thanks

Friday we will be on the front lines of a riot... Trump coming to town.

[malokvale77]

35. Oh dear...

Stay safe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Tom and I intend to

we are carrying all the party flavors for a riot that is.

[bjo59]

39. That press conference was extremely interesting!

[AzDar]

9. Big Ol' K & R!

[senz]

12. Kick -- b/c the Hill folk need to see this!

[Live and Learn]

14. K&R nt

[barrow-wight]

16. I haven't seen many people expect her to hit the 2383 on pledged delegates alone.

However, since Bernie has to get roughly 67% of the remaining pledged delegates just to tie with her, it's going to be up to the superdelegates either way. I could see the supers maybe switching to her if Bernie came to the convention with a significantly higher number of pledged delegates but since he'd have to get 67% just to tie with her, that's very, very unlikely given trends so far. And, given the horrific way that the Superdelegates have been treated by Bernie supporters on a daily basis, and the war Bernie's declared on the Democratic Party as a whole, I don't really see that delegates specifically chosen to vote for the good of the party are going to switch to him. She will be the nominee.

[Peace Patriot]

18. We shall see if your vote suppression efforts work out.

I'm betting that they won't.

[barrow-wight]

19. My vote suppression efforts?

Do you really think me posting on a message board is going to make or break the vote? You ascribe to me too much power. LOL

[NJCher]

128. they're like little ads

all





over the place.

fortunately people are well aware of it and pay no attention.

some of the more seasoned posters automatically put this stuff on ignore.

cher

[barrow-wight]

130. I wish they would.

Then I wouldn't have to feel like I have to respond to their replies.

[fun n serious]

20. We have always known this

It was the same in 08 except Clinton and Obama were only had 60 delegate difference.

[Peace Patriot]

21. I'm posting this info right now in GD: Primaries, amborin.

It's much too important to be buried in the load of crapola we've been seeing from Clinton supporters in the last couple of days.

My post is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512053905

[asuhornets]

22. Kornaki was repeating what Sanders said..

[NorthCarolina]

23. and that means exactly...what?

[appalachiablue]

24. Amazing. Did this get X-POSTED to the Group, I hope.

[amborin]

134. please do

[Joob]

25. Go Bernie!

[procon]

26. No, look again, Kornacki is only talking about pledged delegates.

Did anyone actually watch the video with the audio on?


He's trying to show Sander's nutty math by not counting all the delegates and omitting the supers. Look at the sets or numbers on the board and listen better to what he says.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the only thing Kornacki established was that it is mathematically impossible to win because both sets of delegates will be counted, not just the pledged ones.

[LiberalElite]

28. Kick! nt

[Lord Magus]

31. The threshold is 2384 total delegates, not 2384 pledged delegates alone.

Also Kornacki's math is way off. He ignores the fact that Democratic primaries have a viability threshold of 15%. For example, he says that getting 15 out of 20 delegates from DC would be a "good day" for Clinton, when that would actually be majorly under-performing. That primary looks more like a total wipeout for Sanders, where Clinton would get all 20 delegates. He groups in New Mexico with Montana and the Dakotas as "look like Bernie Sanders states", which is patently absurd. Clinton is almost certainly going to not just win but win big in New Mexico.

It's unlikely that Clinton will get 2384 in pledged delegates alone, but it's not as unlikely as Kornacki claims. And she'll almost certainly have in excess of 2800 total delegates.

[randome]

73. Common sense and objectivity doesn't go over well with some 'round these parts.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[quaker bill]

83. What it means is 1884 pledged delegates for Hillary, vs 2344 pledged delegates for Bernie

to get to the same place, as she started with a roughly 450 SD lead before any votes were cast.

It has been called "putting your thumb on the scale".

[findrskeep]

32. K & R nt

[840high]

37. k/r thanks

[Garrett78]

40. There must be an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

I don't see any evidence for that, but why else would there be so many threads/posts about how Clinton won't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone?

I thought it was widely accepted that Clinton is highly unlikely to reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Perhaps someone can show me evidence that many on DU have claimed otherwise.

[baldguy]

41. Clinton will win the nomination June 7 in California.

While it's true that she can't get enough pledged delegates, then it's also true that Sanders can't either. The simple fact is that Sanders can't win even if he gets ALL of the remaining pledged delegates. He needs the Superdelegates, just as Clinton does. SDs were always intended to be part of the overall delegate count, and that's where Sanders falls way, way, way short.

What you seem to want - and the only way his supporters can pretend that he's still viable - is to count all of Sanders' delegates, all of Sanders' SDs and half of the SDs supporting Clinton that would have to magically switch sides, all the while totally discounting & ignoring Clinton's overwhelming lead in SDs. The Sanders campaign is flying in the face of reality.

[B Calm]

42. Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention,

Here are the numbers:

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries.

[procon]

43. Both pledged and superdelegates count equally toward the total needed.

Whats the point in pretending that you can just count the pledge vote category and ignore the other one?

[B Calm]

44. You are not making any sense what-so-ever! Supers don't even vote until the convention.

What's the point of arguing with someone like you who is pretending that Hillary has this won? Never mind, I know the answer.

[procon]

45. And?

Why are you only counting pledged delegates and deluding yourself that it means Sanders won? Kornacki made a mockery out of that falsehood in his video, showing Sanders nutty math and how he's trying to "prove" he's winning. The man's lying to you. Send money.

[Samantha]

76. You are wrong, I watched it and reported what he said here

He opened up with Sanders' statement about having a narrow path to the nomination and his belief he could possibly win. Kornacki's presentation analyzed that and agreed with Sanders' statement. He also commented that New Jersey would not put Clinton over the top, she needs 612 pledged delegates, and there are 781 available from the remaining states, including California. She would have to win 95 percent of the remaining available delegates and that is not going to happen. She will go to the convention without having closed the nomination with pledged delegates alone. If all her super-delegates stick with her, she will be put over the top with their votes.

This is exactly why she and the Brock brigade keep insisting Bernie should drop out. Hillary wants to lock up the nomination before the convention, which she could do if Bernie did indeed drop out. But he is going to convention. And the repeated statement that Sanders saying the race is hurting Hillary is laughable on its face. The only thing hurting Hillary is Hillary.

Sam

[procon]

77. He's only talking about pledged delegates because that's what Sanders is trying to push.

Look at all the numbers. You're leaving in la-la land if you think you can just skip past the SD, so don't pretend to be that dense, you know both categories will count toward selecting the nominee.

[Samantha]

78. You are the one living in la-la land if you think you can count those SD votes before they are cast

and that happens at the convention.

[procon]

79. That's not even at issue, so why are you only looking at the pledged count,

as if all the SDs already committed to Hillary don't exist?

[Samantha]

80. Take a look at the thread title and that will answer your question

and you know the answer to the second statement.

Bye now. I am done.

Sam

[procon]

81. Um... that was your assertion, I simply questioned your erroneous conclusions. nt

[okasha]

97. They're not pretending.

Alas.

[GulfCoast66]

48. No delegates

Pledged or super vote till the convention. But on the first vote they will both vote to make Hillary the nominee.

[onenote]

52. Everyone "pretends" the winner on election day has won the election

when in fact no one wins the presidential election until the electoral college members have cast their votes and those votes have been voted -- which occurs well after election day.

But as I pointed out, no one ever suggests that the candidate who won the popular vote in states with a majority of the electoral votes hasn't won the election yet. Even though, in theory, the electors in most states can ignore the popular vote in their states and cast their electoral college vote for anyone they choose. (And even in those states that prohibit an electoral college member from ignoring the popular vote in their state, only two invalidate the rogue elector's votes -- the others can punish the rogue elector after the fact but their rogue vote stands).

Unlikely that such a thing would happen? Of course.

But its also unlikely that if Clinton has a majority of the pledged delegates and enough superdelegate commitments to get to 2383 those superdelegates whose commitments put her over the top are going to defect and vote for Sanders. It hasn't happened in the past and it would be shocking if it happened now if Clinton is still in the race.

[WhiteTara]

102. you do know they vote on the first ballot

don't you? You really think that they will all switch to the one that has done nothing but castigate and heap scorn on their existence? Not going to happen. Hillary will be the nominee and Bernie will go back to the Senate on June 8th, just like Jane said.

[Demsrule86]

110. Supers commit

Do you remember in 08 60 delegates moved to Obama? They committed. The same will happen here.

[onenote]

51. There is no "required" number of pledged delegates

The only "required" number is 2383 delegates out of the combined total of 4765 pledged and superdelegates.

In theory, a candidate could get as few as 1669 (41 percent) of the pledged delegates and still win the nomination if every one of the superdelegates voted for that candidate. Indeed, this is essentially what Sanders is hoping for -- that even if he doesn't get a majority of the pledged delegates, enough superdelegates support him to get to 2383. That's a pretty sizable hurdle given the number of supers that have already committed to Clinton and the historical truth that supers don't generally change horses after they've committed.

As has been pointed out here more times than anyone could possibly count, the historical practice is that if a candidate gets to a majority of the pledged delegates and they have commitments from enough superdelegates to put them over the 1/2 of the combined total threshold, they're the winner. The vote at the convention is simply a formality to ratify what everyone knows will happen.

[bkkyosemite]

111. Supers should not be

[onenote]

113. I don't disagree.

But if you cancel them out now, the result doesn't change.

Supers make particularly little sense in a two person race where one candidate is guaranteed to have a majority of the pledged delegates.

[amborin]

92. this is the truth, anything else is the big lie that camp HRC wants the public to swallow

[Tarc]

46. All Hillary has to hit is 2,026, which is a guarantee that the supers will then vote for her

at the convention, as they have at every other convention.

I swear that on the morning of January 20th, when Hillary is being inaugurated, there will be be Berniefans screeching that Justice Roberts, if he really really really wanted to, could summon Sanders onto the stage and swear him in instead.

[Garrett78]

47. Pretty much, and she'll far surpass 2026.

I don't see anyone claiming that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, yet straw man thread after straw man thread suggests there's an epidemic of people doing just that.

[onenote]

49. Strawman: I don't know of anyone who has claimed that Clinton will have 2383 pledged delegates

So it's basically a strawman argument.

Getting pledged delegates in an amount greater than one half the combined number of pledged delegates and superdelegates isn't required. Obama didn't get pledged delegates in an amount greater than one-half the combined number of pledged and supers before Clinton conceded that, on the basis of his pledged delegates plus the supers that had publicly endorsed him, he had secured the nomination and that all that was left was the formality of the vote at the convention.

I'm not even certain Kerry had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without superdelegates when his competitors dropped out.

But if folks want to put their heads in the sand and pretend that Clinton hasn't for all practical purposes secured the nomination the moment she hits a majority of pledged delegates plus enough superdelegate commitments to get 2383 votes at the convention, I suppose there isn't any way to stop them.

Just don't act surprised when it turns out that way.

[Garrett78]

50. Agreed.

See posts #40 and #47. And posts of mine throughout this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2053905

You would think there's an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, yet nobody can point to a single shred of evidence to support that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. Clinton needs 78 delegates to clinch the nomination.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

68. 1769 Pledged delegates and 540 Superdelegates = 2309 delegates

2382 are needed to win.

Actually, she only needs 73.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

69. My bad. Thanks. I believe in math.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

71. Don't be silly - you might have seen a site with different figures

Bottom line: Hillary Clinton will win.

[ucrdem]

85. 73. And the elected-super distinction is utterly irrelevant in this race.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[Agnosticsherbet]

87. A delegate is a delegate. There is no distinction between the too, I know.

[Garrett78]

88. There is a distinction, though.

Neither are technically bound (both pledged delegates and superdelegates can switch), though it's rare for pledged delegates to switch (a candidate can dismiss a pledged delegate if he/she finds out that he/she plans on switching). And superdelegates have been known to switch allegiance in accordance with who ended up with more pledged delegates (this just happened 8 years ago, as I'm sure everyone recalls).

Pledged delegates are won via primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are basically party insider endorsements and aren't earned via voting. To say there's no distinction is rather silly.

[Agnosticsherbet]

90. Sanders will not win the majority of pledged delegates.

And superdelegates are not going to switch to someone who Democrats did not nominate.

Clinton will be nominated on the first vote.

[Garrett78]

91. Of course not. I've been saying that for months.

I agree 100%.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a pretty clear distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates.

[leftynyc]

59. Yawn

She will still have the most pledged delegates so she will win. I'm beginning to feel sorry for those who cannot accept that reality.

[TeacherB87]

60. This video is extremely misleading.

No one will go to the convention with a majority of ALL delegates because, in a somewhat close ttwo person race, the super delegates hold the balance of power. As with any convention, the supers will side with the candidate who has the most delegates. That candidate will be Hillry Clinton. Pretending that the super delegates exist for purposes of making pro-Bernie math and then turning around and forgetting what super delegates always do at the Dem convention is inconsistent at best. Review what happened at the 2008 convention to understand what I'm talking about.

[Garrett78]

61. Amborin says the MSM, especially MSNBC, doesn't want anyone to see that MSNBC video.

On the night of the Indiana primary, posters claimed there was no media coverage of Bernie's win, even though there were headlines everywhere.

Thread after thread suggests many are claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, even though nobody can point to a single post in which that claim is made.

And then there's the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).

And then there's false claims about who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

And then there's the false claims about which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).

And then there's the conspiracies surrounding exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).

And then there are all of the posts suggesting low primary turnout translates to low general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).

And then there are the suggestions that losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general, which is so obviously untrue.

And then there are the posts implying Clinton can't win open primaries, even though she's won more open primaries than Sanders has.

And then there's just the overall failure to grasp demographic and mathematical realities.

Far too many on DU are living in a fantasy world where preconceived notions and desires trump reality.

[TeacherB87]

63. It's really disheartening.

I've never seen self-described progressives behave this poorly. At least it's good to know there are a few rational people still out there.

[Garrett78]

64. Remember that DU is not representative of the population at large.

While many on DU and other message boards are sorely out of touch with reality (taking reality and flipping it on its head in many instances), I remind myself that DU isn't representative of the population at large. This allows me to step back and just shake my head at the cra cra.

[TeacherB87]

65. I know, but

a decade ago it wasn't like this at all. It was an actual community of people trying to discuss real stuff. My profile and post number belie my 13-year readership on this site. (I've gone through several screen names and spent most of the time just reading). This used to be the site I would escape to during the dark ages (2001 - 2006), and now I'd rather read Dailykos, 538, or Google News.

[Garrett78]

66. That's interesting. I wasn't around back then. My theory:

The problem, I think, is that a vocal minority (which dominates the faceless, impersonal Interwebs) have taken what is a valid leftist critique (which some Democrats/Clinton supporters deny) of today's Democratic Party (and of the US political system) and distorted it with grand conspiracies and too much focus on individuals (the Cult of Personality detracts from systems analysis). This phenomenon is catching, so to speak. It snowballs.

And you end up with things like those I listed in a previous post (Sanders-Indiana media blackout, Clinton-Red State meme, people claiming that *none* of the opposition to Clinton has ever been rooted in sexism and misogyny, denying what research suggests about hypothetical general election match-up polling, various straw men arguments, etc.). This failure to accept reality...let me rephrase, this flat-out denial of reality and adherence to fantasy actually prevents people from organizing to alter systemic realities. That's what's so unfortunate about what I refer to as the cra cra.

And getting folks to give up their preconceived notions in the face of sound reasoning, research and so on, is a monumental task.

Why was that not the case when you first started posting at DU? Several reasons. Today's political climate and media exposure is different. Awareness of that valid leftist critique wasn't as great. The faceless, impersonal Internet has become an increasingly dominant part of individual lives. And so on.

[TeacherB87]

75. Also, progressives

stuck together back then because they had a singular foe (the Bush Administration) on which to focus their ire.

[Garrett78]

82. That's certainly a factor, as well.

Ultimately, I think most progressives/liberals/Democrats will unite enough to defeat Trump. But the outgoing president being a Democrat this time around does make for a different dynamic.

[Time for change]

62. I just listened to it

If it was taken off, they put it back on.

[Demsrule86]

72. How convenient

and untrue...I have seen Steve do this...it is understood that as soon as she has the majority...of pledged delegates the Supers comitt...60 moved to Obama after California which Obama lost by the way. The GOP has a magic number,we don't. That is why supers exist.

[senz]

74. HERE'S WHAT STEVE SAID.

Paraphrasing the words, but the numbers are Steve's.

Bernie says, correctly, that Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention and therefore would need super delegates to win. If Bernie does very well, he could end up with more pledged delegates than Hillary. Either way, Hillary cannot get enough pledged delegates to win without super delegates.

Here are the numbers:

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries:

Virgin Islands, PR, CA Mont NJ, NM, ND SD, DC

Even if Hill does well in several states, she will not be able to reach 2383.

Therefore she will need super delegates to get over the top, and there is a possibility Bernie will have done well enough (as well as polling far better against Trump) that super delegates may choose him.

------------------------
I also posted this to another thread on Steve's explanation.

[Garrett78]

89. Nobody disputes the idea that Clinton won't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

So, making it seem as if this is a point of contention is a straw man.

[eastwestdem]

93. Exactly. And MSNBC took down the video because they knew it was misleading.

I can't wait for June 7, and all of this to be over!

[Demsrule86]

84. Really

Still posting this with no link?

[ucrdem]

86. Hillary needs 73 more delegates to clinch. Bernie needs 841.

You can hang your hopes on a SD revolution but I wouldn't count on it.



https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

[Samantha]

96. She needs 612 more pledged delegates (Kornacki's number) to make it to the magic number

and winning without super-delegates, which are not counted until the convention.

Sam

[okasha]

98. And Bernie would need nearly 1000.

This argument doesn't help him. He would need every pledged and unpledged delegate left, plus a handful of Hillary's supers.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

[Samantha]

99. He is 271 pledged delegates behind her right now

We will see where things stand after this last round of voting.

Sam

[okasha]

100. So he would need that many plus ~600 more to get 2383 in pledged delegates alone.

The convention is set up to make it very difficult for a candidate to be nominated without the blessing of the Party stalwarts.

Why is it suvh a strain to understand that the majority of Democratic voters and office-holders want to nominate a Democrat to run for President?

[Samantha]

103. Bernie was a Democratic Socialist for years and caucused with the Democratic Party

There is no label for Democratic Socialists in Congress, so he was grouped with Independents.

The difference between a Democrat and a Democratic Socialist was explained by Sanders himself as being basically a Democrat, but taking it a step further to say the government should work for all of the people, not just the wealthy and the corporations. To me, he is more like an FDR Democrat than anything else.

People are very fond of calling him a Socialist because they think the public will recoil from that word. However, the Socialists in Vermont had a real debate over whether or not they could support him because his views did not comport with theirs.

Personally, I don't care how people label him. The people of Vermont who know him the best and for the longest period of time give him an 86 percent approval rating and he attracts about 25 percent of the Republican vote when he runs. Republicans when asked why they vote for him say he is the only honest politician they have ever had.

That is the key word for me: honest. You might not like everything he says, but at least he tells you the truth.

Sam

[okasha]

105. It is perfectly possible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time.

I've been both for decades.

If Bernie was ever an honest politician, he gave up his integrity when he allowed his campaign to get away from him and turn toxic. He's no longer leading his followers and his managers; he's scrambling to keep up with them.

[Samantha]

115. No, he remains an honest broker and his campaign is doing well

Scrambling to keep up with them? Have you seen his schedule in California? It is more like the opposite is true.

Sam

[Samantha]

104. From what he said recently, he is shooting for a simple majority of pledged delegates over Hillary

and the Convention will take it from there. She needs 612 pledged delegates to make it to 2383.

Probably neither will make it to that number before the convention, as Kornacki and others have said, barring any unusual circumstances.

Sam

[brooklynite]

116. To get a majority of pledged delegates, he'll need about 75% of the California vote...

...nothing indicates he'll be anywhere close to that.

[underthematrix]

101. This is irrelevant as it was in 2008

It says DELEGATE count must be 2383 or over to win nomination which includes both super and pledged delegates. Superdelegates can support whoever they want.

[ancianita]

107. I saw it and the way Kornacki explains it, Bernie's got a real shot at the convention.

[Demsrule86]

108. You really don't understand the process

Once she has secured the majority of pledged delegates...the supers move as they did for Obama...and she is the nominee...they commit. She needs 73 to have the majority of delegates...by the 7th she will probably need around 30 after a couple of smaller primaries come in...Obama did not win the nomination on pledged delegates ...the candidate with the most delegates wins...the supers move to them...they commit probably on June 7th... after Jersey and before California and she is declared the presumptive nominee...Bernie gets out somewhere between the 7th and 14th.

[lmbradford]

114. K & R

[beachbum bob]

117. kornacki is an idiot....the nomination is based on pledge and supers...and hillary will have the

required amount a couple hours after they close the polls in New Jersey...california doesn't even matter

all the dreaming that hillary will be indicted...all the dreaming that supers will flock to bernie...it is what it is, a fantasy


hillary is the nominee,

[AzDar]

119. Kickin' For The Dense And The Diehards...

[AzDar]

121. Kicking for the obtuse...

[Garrett78]

123. Show me a post where someone claimed Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

To act as if that is in dispute constitutes a straw man argument and nothing more.

[Jitter65]

125. If Hillary gets just 50% of the remaining pleaded delegates she will go into the convention needing

about 75-85 supers. You know damn well that she will bet at least that many wishing the first 5 states roll called.

[Garrett78]

127. She'd need about 115. Regardless, she'll get there quickly.

Anyway, my point, of course, was just that so many in this thread have acted as if the point of the OP is in dispute. It isn't. I haven't seen anyone claim that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Nobody is being "obtuse" about that.

DU is littered with straw man arguments.

[Lil Missy]

129. It doesn't matter. Superdelegates DO count - regardless of Bernie insisting they don't.

He has no authority to change the rules of the game, so his word on this is nothing but HOT AIR.

[ucrdem]

131. #BernieScience.

They'll go to their graves believing he was robbed. That's a lousy thing to do to people.

[Lil Missy]

132. And how ironic that he wants to steal unpledged delegates that voted for Hillary in order to win.

He's some piece of work. And Ted Devine has all the characteristics of a snake-oil salesman. Bunch of smoke-and-mirror crooks.

[beachbum bob]

133. lol...again with the alternative reality....the nomiation is based on super delegates too

hillary has it sown up....tuesday at 9pm she is our nominee