2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOh my goodness, Bernie supporters, PLEASE READ
There is so much confusion about delegates and superdelegates and clinching and math and June 7. I'm finding it very frustrating!
Hopefully I can clarify a little.
There are TWO "magic numbers" you could, if you chose, use to determine whether a candidate has clinched the nomination.
1. With superdelegates: 2383 (or 2384 depending on which source you look at)
2. Without superdelegates: you have to subtract the number of superdelegates (719) from the total, which gives you 1664.
Historically, all news media and people in general have used the superdelegate total when declaring the nominee because, well, that's reality. The superdelegates DO count, and a candidate DOES need to reach 2383 to clinch.
So if you count WITH superdelegates, then you also need to include superdelegates who have declared for one candidate in their total. Any other way of doing it is dishonest. You can't use the number 2383 and then also say that Hillary has to reach that number without her declared SDs. That makes no sense. They didn't do that for Obama or any other presidential candidate after the SDs were introduced.
The other argument is that SDs can change their minds, which is true. But that argument had a LOT more weight in, say, February. It's just dishonest, when Bernie needs something like 70% of ALL remaining delegates to beat her pledged delegate lead, to say that SDs are going to switch.
The final argument is disaster happening. If you are a person who thinks that Hillary is definitely going to be indicted, this post is probably not for you.
(By the way, if you count WITHOUT SDs, Hillary has already reached the magic number. But again, no one counts like that.)
So when I see posts saying things like "Hillary needs 79% of the remaining delegates from the contests that are left in order to clinch" (that is a real example of a post I read just today on this very website) it is really frustrating, because they are both counting SDs in the total she needs and eliminating committed SDs from her total. That is simply dishonest. If you want to make the argument that SDs are uncommitted until the convention and so they shouldn't count toward a candidate's total, then you also have to remove them from the magic number.
As a side note: I see totally fallacious arguments on DU saying things like "Trump has already clinched and Hillary can't close the deal which shows she's a weak candidate", which makes NO SENSE because Democrats have proportional allocation in ALL their contests while the Repubs have winner takes all for a lot of theirs.
Please also have a look at Gothmog's post about how candidates have historically clinched when SDs are involved: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512091073
And here is 538's explanation of why Hillary will clinch on June 7:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-will-likely-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-in-new-jersey/
The truth is, barring a disaster, Hillary will clinch the nomination on June 7. And that's a fact.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)in the form of an FBI recommendation. But thank you for the effort to clarify. The whole system imo is convoluted.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I agree that is incredibly convoluted. If I had my way, everyone would vote on a mail-in ballot on the same day, with machine counting and hand verification for a certain percentage of the votes. The whole thing would be shortened by about 6 months and we'd all have a nominee much sooner and with WAY less money and contention!
Sadly, no one has appointed me Supreme Commander of the Universe yet, but I live in hope.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Bernie's in the White House, AND he gives me the job to appoint Supreme Commanders of the Universe.
Caveat:
In case there are more than one supreme commander to be appointed, I'll be very busy appointing them.
However I can guarantee you the below-described appointment, to be bestowed in plenty of time for his re-election:
Most Honorable & Supreme Commander of the Universe, Voting Division .
MISSION: You shall bring forth One (1) Uniformly Honest & Verifiable National Voting System.
You herewith have my fully anonymous, virtuous, and virtual vow which I have herewith and heretoforewhich signed in virtual blood and virtually sealed for posterity with virtual sealing wax, from the ceiling.
Should such a system be so hard to order into existence? I think not. Not with the right appointments.
And with hope? almost anything is possible.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Of course we disagree about our candidate, but I feel certain that we agree that our electoral system needs a MAJOR overhaul and needs to be clean, fair, and verifiable! Just because my candidate won this time around doesn't mean I don't think this is a TOP priority.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)They have to exist in real time in order to be actual facts.
Some do, but most, although cited, don't actually exist.
The ones that don't exist, aren't facts yet. They may never be.
Now, that IS a fact in current time.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)She will not clinch the nomination in pledged delegates. And the SD is a way to get their way by choosing lobbyists and cronies to help her over the top. Enough! We have had a enough. If Bernie gets more pledged delegates
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)which is the closest whole number greater than 4051/2.
Not sure where the idea of taking half of all delegates and subtracting all the SDs came from. Mathematically it makes no sense.
apnu
(8,749 posts)coco77
(1,327 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)delusion that Sanders will somehow still win, and for some why he should.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)belief. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.
People believe in God, but there's no proof it exists.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I was joking about. It wasn't a good joke anyway.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)2026 is a majority of the pledged delegates. Whoever obtains 2026 pledged delegates will essentially be guaranteed the support of the superdelegates.
Clinton should probably cross that line when NJ closes.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I was mostly trying to address the fallacious argument that Hillary is somehow required to get to 2383 without allocating her committed SDs to her total, but of course you are right. In reality, the majority of pledged delegates (which again, barring disaster, Hillary will also reach on June 7) is what will send her over the top with SDs.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)NJ won't do it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)moral claim on the nomination.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)riversedge
(70,033 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)And certainly all should be consistent in how they count.
You wrote: "The truth is, barring a disaster, Hillary will clinch the nomination on June 7. And that's a fact." But in your own terminology, if June 7th comes without a disaster she will then clinch. But if a disaster then happened on June 20th she will unclinch?
That calls into question the definition of clinch in the first place. Obviously if your definition of disaster is to be abducted by Martians, it all is neat and clean, but the real world has shades of grey. What if the disaster was something like an FBI Report issued on June 30th that did not recommend criminal charges, thus technically clearing Hillary at least, but which was very strongly critical of her while saying her actions just did not quite reach the level needed for criminal prosecution? What if her approval ratings then sank to 26% and Trump opened up an 12 point lead in the polls over her? Would that qualify as a political disaster? Would that unclinch it for her?
Super Delegates are not pledged. Were Hillary to have won an absolute majority of pledged delegates by June 7th, no that kind of political disaster could not possibly unclinch the nomination for her unless she voluntarily withdrew. That is what "clinching " really means.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)as 538 calls them, declare Hillary our nominee. Shouldn't be that way, of course, but it's the way it happens.
It is expected that she will in fact very likely clinch the nomination in New Jersey that day, before the polls close out west in California. In any case, it is appropriate for the nation to swivel to the GE at that point because the GOP is already armed and engaging us in battle. And we can't wish them away any more than you can wish Sanders into the Oval Office.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Same rules apply to Clinton that applied to Obama, Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, etc.
When the voting is over and one candidate has absolute majorities of pledged delegates, super delegates, and total delegates, the winner is declared.
Sanders supporters need to understand they have nothing to gain from attacking Clinton after the voting is over. Nothing.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Bernie.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)2026 pledged delegates will almost certainly win the nomination and she will cross that number (barring her dropping out of the race).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)not be applied to Clinton. She will have a majority amongst all categories of delegates. The race is effectively over in one week and 13 hours.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512093138
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)applied to a man before.
Clinch means guaranteed victory. 2383 is what is needed for that.
I'm a woman, BTW.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama needed superdelegates. When he had enough, he clinched. Sanders will have lost on June 7.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)are won.
How high did you go in math classes?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)See Recursion's post above.
Again, you're using the word pledged. Pledged means minus SDs.
But that's semantics. I see your larger point. I don't think anything is going to happen with the emails. I think it is a hammer currently being used to bludgeon Hillary with, that is going to fizzle out because most people don't seem too worried about it. It's an administrative error, not an indictment of her character.
However, I don't want to argue about that because that is not what this post is about. We are in agreement that if a disaster occurs (and I agree, an FBI report that severely impugns her competency would fall into that category, as incredibly unlikely as I find that possibility) then SDs could switch. But we also agree that people should be honest in how they're throwing around these numbers. And that was my point in the OP.
Thanks for your reply.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I'm not hoping for political diameter to befall Hillary. More likely is some continued bruising. I only hope that if "disaster" were to strike (no need to debate just how unlikely that may be) that it happen before our convention. And it is not my intent to "attack" Hillary after voting ends (to speak to a point made above in another reply to me). Should her nomination then appear inevitable, I would however still press her to adopt policies and priorities that were important to me, and to make appointments to her Administration consistent with that. That form of expression is consistent with the rights and even obligation of all Democrats to weigh in on prior to our national convention.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)make appointments to her Administration consistent with that."
As all thinking people should do with ANY politician. Blind loyalty is not my style. I am a huge Hillary supporter, but I see nothing wrong with expressing ourselves as to what is important to us personally.
On the other hand, Hillary, and ostensibly her platform, have been chosen by the majority of Democratic voters. I wouldn't want to see her deviate too far from it in order to appease some very liberal voters who are upset on the left. I for one am pleased with her platform how it stands. I wouldn't mind some wiggle room, but I don't want her to take huge leaps away from what she ran on. Because the people who voted for her approved of those positions. And I don't think she will.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Because it makes a real difference when all of those decisions are processed, whether whoever came out on top did so with 52% of the delegates won in the Democratic primaries etc. or 68% of them.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)That old word, "mandate", rears its ugly head.
I believe Hillary will win the primaries with a strong showing, and I believe she will SHELLACK Trump in the general. Then we can take our mandate (and hopefully a Democratically-controlled Congress along with it) and shove it up the Repub's asses!
Vinca
(50,236 posts)This morning she is up only 4 points on Trump and Bernie is up 15. Hillary people quickly add that if Bernie drops out her lead will increase dramatically. To that I say, if she dropped out, Bernie's lead would also go up dramatically.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Convention which Bernie has a right to contest before the SDs actually vote.
Thanks for clearing that up.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I'm afraid the mass media and everyone else including the owners of this website will have moved forward without you.
This is the way it's done, it has always (well, since SDs came into being) been done this way, it was the same for every single Democratic candidate in all that time, and it's the way it will happen this cycle too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the right to criticize him for putting his ego above what's good for the country, should he do that.
I read these tiresome OPs as nothing more than people trying to convince themselves.
If they honestly believed what they're slapping up several times a day, they wouldn't be so obviously compelled to carry on so.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)And make people change their minds.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Hell, they positively encourage it, if the recent amnesty is any indication.
I'll save the rant, but there are lots of small minds here.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)touted prior to convention, that's new. Also new is calling them 'super' when what they are supposed to be is 'unpledged' and that's what we Democrats call them in the actual regulations. So that's a load of horse puckey, that those delegates have always been used as aggressive campaign elements. Incorrect. Very much so.
The unpledeged delegates simply have no mechanism legally to make that vote prior to the convention. The vote does not even exist until the convention is called to order.
It's also charming in a 'Reagan was a hero of AIDS' revisionist sort of way to claim that the conventions always go the same way, super smooth and predictable. Like 1968. Or 1980. No variations, it's all cut an dried and easy to call long,long in advance.....
When did you start paying attention to the process? 2010?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)So neither of your examples (1968 or 1980) makes any sense in the context of this OP.
I've been paying attention to the process since my first presidential election after I turned 18, which was 1992 when I proudly voted for Bill Clinton. I've voted Democratic in every presidential (and Congressional, and State, and Local) election since.
You are very rude and condescending in your post. Why?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Take for example, 'if you prefer'. It's not what I prefer, it's what the language of the Democratic Party calls them. The term 'super delegates' is a slang term, used by people who seek to pump up the standing of those delegates. The fact that the actual title is 'unpledged' or 'uncommitted' speaks volumes, if they have committed they are not carrying out their duty to be uncommitted. That's the actual fact.
Accuracy in terminology is an aspect of honesty and respect. Inaccuracy in terminology is about agenda. I am using the proper terms while being lectured in slang.
So the 'if that's what you prefer' is snark. You wish to use slang terms that sound stronger 'they are Super Democrats'. What they are is delegates who have no legal means of pledging their vote until they cast the vote. No legal means, and a position that is defined as being uncommitted, not pledged.
The rhetorical abuse of their position is one factor that has been causing so much distrust in the process. And it is not how it was intended to be. They will wind up without any such delegates because they were incapable of using them according to the rules and according to democratic ideals.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)You sure do have...strong opinions about semantics. I'll leave you to it.
As an aside, I genuinely have no opinion about whether the delegates in question are called "super" or "unpledged". I don't care either way. But the vehemence of your reply implies that I do have an opinion, and that I'm using the term as a weapon, instead of just using the same term all news media and online outlets uses for the sake of understanding. That implication is wrong.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)rather obviously have never actually read. And that's my point. You are in fact preaching a sermon on a process without having even read the regulations of that process. Our Party's rules. It's not my opinion that they are not called 'super' in the Party language. That's a fact.
I have the strong opinion that those who preach on a subject should know it well. You have not read the rules and you think they are matters of opinion.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)As you think. The very 2 years you state were prior to Super Delegates. Look up 2008 as see how that worked.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Did you know that our Party regulations never use the term 'Super Delegate'? But you do, so does the OP. Why is that? Why rely on slang when discussing something like written rules and regulations?
Do you think 'unpledged' and 'super' mean the same things? I don't. Only one of those terms is actually part of our Party rules. Rules, laws, they are made of words and of words alone. So those who won't use the proper terms when speaking of rules and laws really put up the old red flag....
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That's why the sd declared beforehand, to try to preempt the campaign altogether.
rock
(13,218 posts)You got nothing better to do?
Logical
(22,457 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)You guys are so easy.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)have 1664 delegates you can win the nomination (if all supers go with you). If you have less, you're completely eliminated.
If you have 2026 you need half the supers. This is almost guaranteed because if you won half the delegates you will likely get at least half of the supers.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The email stuff is bad and going to get worse.
The wingnuts thank you.
Gothmog
(144,876 posts)Great article on how in every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
?1464557557
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Heres how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....
Summary
Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?
First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.
Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.
The major thing Ive learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Harts 36 percenteven then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.
When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there arent a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say youre the nominee.
Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.
The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the presumptive nominee) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had clinched the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, MichiganI hope were still not fighting this?).
This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.