I'd like to clear up this delegate count issue

[passiveporcupine]

I'm looking for rules from the Democratic National Committee, but cannot find them. I'm not sure they are even available to the public on the web. But I did find this on ballotopedia.org.

In order to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate must win 2,383 delegates at the national convention (this total is current as of June 01, 2016). Currently, there are expected to be 4,765 delegates at the Democratic National Convention.[7]

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

Let me repeat this part...

In order to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate must win 2,383 delegates AT THE CONVENTION

If I'm reading this correctly, there is no official nominee until the convention. Period. You can have a presumptive nominee, but not an official one. Even if Hillary is called the presumptive nominee, and Bernie concedes (which he says he won't...he wants to take this to a contested convention), She still will only be the 'presumptive' nominee until the convention. Even though everyone knows she will become the nominee at the convention.

But with a contested convention, that might change.


Skinner has pretty much confirmed this in some of his replies in his thread on DU policy concerning the nominee after the primaries...by saying this:

Actually you're wrong. We know exactly what would happen.

First of all, Bernie isn't going to win a contested convention. But if he does I know exactly what is going to happen on Democratic Underground: We're going to support the Democratic nominee.

It's really that's simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5923

Of course, if you count super delegates, which you are not supposed to do, Clinton might actually meet the required number of delegates prior to the convention to be the 'presumptive' nominee. But she still is not the official nominee until the convention.

however, not including the superdelegates, she will likely be called the 'presumptive' nominee based solely on having a majority of pledged delegates after the primaries...in which case she will be called the 'presumptive' nominee. But still it's not official and it can be upset at a contested convention and she may end up losing. I don't expect that to happen, but it is still a possibility.

I believe I am correct on this.

[grasswire]

1. here's what HRC says:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.

Sen. Hillary Clinton lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the popular vote and in pledged delegates.

It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago.
..........................

I believe you are more than right.

[passiveporcupine]

2. Yes, pledged delegates can switch their votes too,

even though they rarely do.

I'm not sure she's correct on that bolded text though. I will see if I can find an answer to that as well.

[Gothmog]

33. The candidate has absolute approval rights over pledged delegates

I am helping vet Clinton delegates and committee people for my Senate District

[LiberalFighter]

74. How long is that expected to take?

[Happyhippychick]

4. And we know how that went

[HarmonyRockets]

3. Well duh.

None of this is new information at all. Did anyone here not know that the nominee is officially nominated at the convention? Isn't that the entire point of the convention? Who needed this to be "cleared up?"

[Fla Dem]

8. There are evidently some on here who are new to this whole election thingy.

Apparently if your candidate yells the loudest, has more people at their rallys, complains about the rules the most, and doesn't release their tax information, then they should win the election regardless how many delegates a candidate may have pledged, or ACTUAL votes a candidate may have received. So every once in a while someone posts a tutorial to help them understand the process.

[passiveporcupine]

12. Yeah, that's what I meant

[Maedhros]

63. There are evidently some on here who are new to this whole "liberal" thingy.

Apparently, if your candidate rakes in piles of corporate cash, chortles with glee after initiating a military campaign based on lies, slavers over the possibility of starting more wars in Syria and Iran, supports the institutional racism of the private prison industry, and helps draft a job-killing corporate-friendly trade agreement, then they should still be considered a "liberal."

So every once in a while someone posts a tutorial to help them understand the process.

[LoverOfLiberty]

67. Thare are evidently some on here who are new to this whole "Democracy" thing

Like, you know, whoever gets the most votes wins.

But since Berners are so convinced that only they are right, they will not accept the tenets of a Democratic society, they will demand victory they have not earned.

And there is going to be hell to pay when they don't get it.

[Trajan]

76. I think I remember liking you

That was before I saw this ...

Then ... I didn't ... I hit the button ...

Then I was happy again ...

[Garrett78]

10. The same folks who needed it cleared up that Clinton likely won't reach 2383 via PDs alone.

In other words, nobody.

Thread after thread stating the obvious and poster after poster acting as if there's a dispute where there isn't one.

[passiveporcupine]

11. Apparently a lot of the Hillary people

Who keep insisting the nominee is decided and the race is over after New Jersey, or the end of the primaries.

You must not be reading all those threads here and they are all over the place.

I knew this and have been arguing this for some time, but I've never seen it in writing like "proof" of rules to show the Hill camp they are wrong.

You can see it right here in this thread.

[Garrett78]

22. I don't think anyone disputes the difference between "presumed" and "official."

It's just that the presumed has always become the official. Practically speaking, it was clear by mid-March that Clinton would end up with more pledged delegates. Technically speaking, of course nothing is "official" until the convention.

In November, there will be an election, which will produce a President-Elect. But it won't be "official" until the electoral college meets in December. Between November and December, though, nobody will doubt who the next POTUS will be.

[passiveporcupine]

26. I agree it's always worked that way

There has never been a challenger who was not the 'presumptive' nominee to take it to a contested convention before, and superdelegates have swung decisions before (2008) by changing their votes (or support).

This is not a typical election cycle. I've never seen one like this where a party outsider has actually won so much of the vote.

[Garrett78]

31. In '08, the superdelegates simply honored the fact that Obama won more PDs.

Time will tell if Sanders actually contests the convention. But it won't really matter if he does.

[passiveporcupine]

32. Even if he contests, I don't expect him to win it

But it will still make a stronger voice (more delegates) for the progressive movement he is leading and hopefully push the party back to the left a little.

[Garrett78]

37. Because contesting has no bearing on the result, there's nothing for him to win.

Contesting simply means Sanders hasn't conceded (something I still think he'll end up doing prior to the floor vote).

The makeup of the platform committee has been settled, so I'm not sure there's really anything to gain from Sanders not conceding following the DC primary on June 14th.

[lagomorph777]

43. There are Hillary supporters here claiming that it's mathematically over now.

It's just bizarre.

By the way, if the nominee doesn't get 2026 pledged delegates, and makes up the difference with SDs, there will be problems with credibility going forward, because that would be an override of the will of the primary voters.

So there are TWO key numbers:

2383 in PD + SD
2026 in PD

Without both, the "nominee" is going to struggle badly for credibility. Which, for one of the two, is already a major issue.

[Garrett78]

52. Clinton will easily surpass 2026. That's been clear since mid-March.

[lagomorph777]

65. It's fine to believe it WILL happen;

not healthy to pretend it already HAS happened.

[Tarc]

5. Clinton will be the presumptive nominee on June 7th

[bigtree]

6. superdelegates are like an early vote in that process

...and that vote is stacked against Sen, Sanders in a major way. Insurmountable.

I know he intends to make some argument at the convention that he's more electable. You should hope he doesn't embarrass himself by making that goofy case in whatever speech he's allowed.

[Gothmog]

7. Your analysis is wrong-based on history Clinton will be the presumptive nominee on June 7

You are ignoring history and want special rules just for Sanders. In every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. That fact that this is not favorable to Sandes does not matter http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved

?1464557557

After reading a number of impassioned defenses of why the Democratic presidential nomination should not be called next week on June 7th, I got curious. What’s the history here, since the superdelegates were added to the process? When a Democratic candidate hits the magic number of pledged delegates plus superdelegates, are they the nominee?

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.

Here’s 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 I’ve 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 Hart’s 36 percent—even 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 aren’t 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 you’re 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, Michigan—I hope we’re 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.

[passiveporcupine]

13. I did not say she would not be the 'presumptive' nominee

I said that doesn't mean she will necessarily end up the nominee.

And the point I'm trying to find the rules to back up is that the DNC rules do not count the superdelegates until they vote at the convention, so you can't use those to claim her even 'presumptive' nominee. In this case she will most likely end up 'presumptive' nominee because of a majority of pledged delegates, but if the race is tight, meaning Bernie has closed the gap on pledged delegates by the end of the primaries (which I don't expect), he could still win at a contested convention...so it's not mathematically impossible like so many of you are saying.

I'm not saying she won't end up our nominee. I'm saying stop using the tactics of Bernie Math to try to discredit Bernie's battle in this race. He wants to fight to the end, and while I know that makes the "party" establishment uncomfortable, he is representing a very serious revolution of progressives in this country right now and we don't want him to quit. Not because he will win, but to make a point about how important it is that the party swing back to the left again. It's been moving to the right for far too long.

[Gothmog]

15. Sanders supporters want special rules for Sanders

In every contested Democratic Primary since the creation of super delegates, the presumptive nominee has been named based on both pledged delegates and announced super delegates. That is what is going to happen on June 7 when the polls close in New Jersey. The fact that Sanders wants a different set of rules to justify a fight on the floor does not matter. Sanders is not entitled to a special set of rules.

Sanders is lying to his supporters about a contested convention and fighting to the convention to keep the small dollar donations coming. That is very sad

[passiveporcupine]

27. Propaganda

Sanders is lying to his supporters about a contested convention and fighting to the convention to keep the small dollar donations coming. That is very sad

What is sad is the fear some Hillary supporters have of Sander's massive support and enthusiasm.

[lagomorph777]

44. I think what's causing a lot of confusion on both sides is the slang term "Superdelegates"

There is no such term in the DNC rules.

What they are is "unpledged delegates."

They may have made various promises to HRC, long before the primaries started. But under DNC rules, they have every right to change their minds before the first vote at the convention (unlike most of the pledged delegates). The much-vaunted SD block could well change their minds, if, for example, they see a GE advantage with Bernie. Many of them are elected officials and would be affected by GE Dem turnout. GE Dem turnout is obviously affected by who is at the top of the ticket, and GE polls show a sustained and large difference there.

[onenote]

68. You fail to appreciate who the SDs are and what will motivate them.

The SDs fall into a couple of categories. One group is made up of elected Democrats -- governors, members of the House and Senate, the President and Vice President. The other, larger group, is made up of Democratic party officials and insiders.

In other words,the vast majority of the SDs are the very "Democratic Establishment" that Sanders and his supporters so often rail against. And railing against them isn't likely to get them to change their support for someone who is a lot more like them than Sanders is. Sanders himself wasn't a super delegate in 2008. Why? Because he wasn't a Democrat. And the SDs were created to insure that the Democratic Party -- the people who have devoted considerable resources and time to the Democratic Party and who have identified themselves as Democrats -- maintain some control over who the Democratic Party's standard bearer is.

All of those factors add up to one conclusion: as long as Clinton is in the race, the SDs aren't going to abandon her. In fact, it is likely that once the voting is over, most of the remaining SDs who haven't announced will publicly come out in support of Clinton. They will be encouraged to do so by the fact that once the voting over, President Obama almost certainly will do the same -- he and Joe Biden will make it clear that from their perspective the contest is over and the nominee has been chosen. Indeed, some of the delegates that endorsed Sanders may even switch after the voting is done, citing the need to bring the party together and shift to GE mode.

[lagomorph777]

69. What is the party for?

I mean, yes, it's for making money.
It used to be for working people (at least, as a means to an end).

But fundamentally, isn't the main job of any party to collectively gather the power of many people, and win elections? If the party doesn't win elections, the gravy train screeches to a halt.

Even those who aren't elected officials must have this in their minds.

[onenote]

70. Over the years political parties have served varied purposes and played a number of roles

However, the core purpose of a political party is to provide a vehicle for like minded individuals to come together to pursue the implementation of their common goals with respect to matters of public policy. Political parties offer the structure and organization by which these groups of like minded people identify issues, formulate positions on the issues, nominate candidates for office that will pursue, support and defend the party's positions and goals. This structure includes maintaining lists of party members and supporters and engaging them through get out the vote activities as well as providing various services and support, including financial to the nominees that seek to represent the party and its members as nominees for office.

While political parties generally bring together like minded people, they cannot and do not expect all people joining the party to agree on every issue and every position. What is expected, however, is that members of the party will support the party's candidates over the candidates of other parties and that the officials elected under the party's banner will in most instances support the positions taken by the party as communicated through the party leadership (i.e., Speaker or minority leader in House, Majority or minority leader in Senate) and President and VP.

Political parties are neither entirely top down or bottom up in character. They are bottom up entities to the extent that it is the party membership can and does participate in the selection of leaders and the selection of nominees for office. It also is bottom up to the extent that groups within the party communicate their interest in particular issues and positions and those views are considered and often accepted by the leadership. But it is top down in the sense that the leadership makes decisions about whether and to what extent to support particular candidates and positions and in the sense that membership (both elected officials and rank and file) often depend on the party and its leadership to communicate to them a plan of action on a particular issue.

Now, to the real heart of your question. Yes, getting the party's standard bearers elected is ultimately the goal of the party. However, the views of any individual member of the party or of leaders within the party as to who is the best standard bearer can and do vary. The party leaders who serve as superd's may not view the varying merits of Sanders v. Clinton the same way you do. And neither do millions of rank and file Democrats. So those leaders make their individual choices. If they conclude that both Clinton and Sanders can win the election, then other factors may come into play for particular SDs in making their decision. And superd's, themselves present and former officials and/or party insiders of high standing, may take a different view of polling five months before an election than you do. There is not an objective right or wrong to the actions of superd's in terms of who they support. If even after a presumptive (or even conclusive) nominee has been chosen, the supers can stick by their position and, to the extent there is a roll call at the convention, voice their support for whomever they want. However, for the most part, as party loyalists interested in winning, they will come together behind the presumptive nominee, especially where that nominee has won a majority of the pledged delegates and has performed strongly in terms of the number of contests won and the popular vote obtained.

[tyrealworld]

47. Fear

Agree with your points. Some Hillary supporters are unable to see that the super-delegate system exists to support the candidate that can win in the general election EVEN IF another candidate has won the popular vote AND a majority of the delegates in the primary process.

(those same supporters will probably see in this statement a justification for why Bernie should win the nomination, which it is not; it is simply a fat not a justification and the reason why they would see it this way is below)

So why would these individuals be unable to understand and accept this fact? And why would they also be unable to understand the fact that by adding super-delegates into the count when the primary season began, months and months before they actually give their vote, the media influenced the populace to vote for the candidate that they suggested was a better product simply by adding the super-delegate count?

(I'd add here that these same people would read into this statement that I am suggesting Bernie may have been able to win the popular vote if the super-delegate count had not been included from the beginning, when in fact I'm sure you would also agree that Hillary would have still won the popular vote maybe even by a larger count, who knows, but the fact is we don't know and would only know if they weren't included, right?)

So the answer to the questions is in the reply title: FEAR. At some level they are afraid that Bernie can still win, likely even believing more than you or I do that he might upset her and win the nomination. How ironic!

[passiveporcupine]

48. I agree

It is ironic.

[azurnoir]

19. You can throw as much word salad at as you wish but here are the facts

Hilary conceded she was promised among other things $22,000,000 to pay off her campaign and a juicy cabinet position as SoS , and IMO judging from the actions of the DNC this election cycle she was promised more than that

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Obscurantism.

The presidential election is on 11/8. Congress doesn't certify the votes of the Electoral College until 1/6.

It is not as if the American public has no idea of who the next president will be until the latter date.

[passiveporcupine]

49. Not relevant to this discussion

After 11/8 there is no competition.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Actually there is...

The popular vote is only binding on Electors by law in twenty seven states... Electors could theoretically vote for the loser of the popular vote in their states. They don't because they are bound by tradition and respect for the popular vote.

[passiveporcupine]

56. Wasn't aware of that

Thanks for the info. That is just wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. The Electoral College is undemocratic enough with the extra delegate for each state.

Google "faithless elector"... There have been instances where an Elector votes in contravention of his state's popular vote but those instances are rare.

[stevenleser]

79. It gets even worse than that. The state legislatures Constitutionally have a crazy

amount of power regarding their state's electors.

The day the SCOTUS decided the 2000 election, the Florida State Legislature (which was overwhelmingly Republican at the time) was meeting to vote to give the state's electors to Bush. And they would have been within their rights to do so.

[FSogol]

14. "if you count super delegates, which you are not supposed to do", decided some Sanders supporters.

When has not counting the super delegates ever happened? They are counted each year (as long as they have existed) as the process plays out.

[passiveporcupine]

16. It's been posted here...the DNC said no

That's why I've been looking for the rules to clarify that.

The superdelegates often switch at the convention, so it doesn't really matter who they claim to support up to that point. And it skews the race, like this year, were most of them were on the Hillary bandwagon before she even had to "win" them over. She came out of the gate heavily armed with superdelegates because she is establishment (as they are) and Bernie is not. She has the "power and connections in the party" and her opponent does not (whether it be Bernie or O'Malley or whomever), she was the presumptive winner from the start of the race, and that means it's a rigged game, and the voters don't count. Because everyone knows that who is in the lead often swings votes in their favor, or brings out more support for them for otherwise apathetic voters. And the six month media blackout for Bernie sure didn't help him either...it did help Clinton.

Here it is coming from the communications director for the Democratic National Committee (Luis Miranda) himself:

Luis Miranda:

"Superdelegates is, I think, one of the problems is the way the media reports it. Any night that you have a primary or a caucus, the media lumps in the superdelegates that they've basically polled, because they just called them up and say who are you supporting. They don't actually vote until the convention, and so they shouldn't be included in any count on primary or caucus night, cause the only thing you're picking on primary nights are the pledged delegates based on the vote.

Jake Tapper:

What about when we do our totals? When we do our totals you think it's OK to include?

Luis Miranda:

Not yet, because they're not actually voting and they're likely to change their minds. You look at 2008 ...

The point he stresses in this clip is that it is the voters who have always elected the nominee (through pledged delegates) and the superdelegates have never decided the winner, and should not be counted in those totals until the convention.

So if neither candidate gets enough required votes without the supers to take the nomination before the convention, it ends up a contested convention unless all candidates drop out but one prior to the convention. Yes, a 'presumptive' nominee is declared ahead of the convention, but it's not a given that they will win, even if 'historically' they always have. And it's not right for the media to include superdelegates in their totals before the convention, even though 'historically' they always have.

[FSogol]

17. Sheesh, look at every other Democratic primary since 1984.

So if neither candidate gets enough required votes without the supers to take the nomination before the convention, it ends up a contested convention unless all candidates drop out but one prior to the convention. Yes, a 'presumptive' nominee is declared ahead of the convention, but it's not a given that they will win, even if 'historically' they always have. And it's not right for the media to include superdelegates in their totals before the convention, even though 'historically' they always have.

Wishful thinking or total nonsense?

On Tuesday around 8 pm, HRC will have won.

[passiveporcupine]

20. Only if Bernie drops out

Sorry, you are wrong. And this just shows why I started this thread.

Not wishful thinking. I won't mind if Bernie chooses to concede after Hillary becomes the 'presumptive' nominee...it would certainly be easier for him than keeping the battle going just for the party revolution. I would not blame him for deciding to do this.

Not total nonsense. Just based on the party rules (and reality) as Luis Miranda has explained here.

[FSogol]

23. Enjoy your bubble. Luis Miranda is just throwing a bone to Sanders supporters, it won't make a

difference.

On 6/7/16, HRC will win the Democratic primary.

[passiveporcupine]

36. finally one of you admits he said it...

nice how you throw him under the bus for it, because you cannot admit the fact that he is correct.

[FSogol]

38. One of me? A Democrat?

[passiveporcupine]

39. One of you being one of those

who is seeming to refuse to accept what Luis said is true.

I know you are an O'Malley supporter, but you are still siding with Hill camp on this, NO?

[FSogol]

42. I know reality when I see it. The race is over on Tuesday.

Luis is not correct. The Super delegates have always been counted in the past, even last time when HRC was closer to Obama than Sanders is to HRC.

[Blue_Adept]

18. It's like we're seeing all five stages hitting within a couple of days for some folks

The number of these mansplaining posts about how the presumptive nominee is figured out is hilarious. It's going this year the way it essentially has since my first one back in 1984.

[passiveporcupine]

21. mansplaining?

Thanks for that sexist comment. I'm a woman.

[FSogol]

24. Men and women are not races.

[passiveporcupine]

28. thanks for catching that

fixed it.

[Blue_Adept]

25. I don't care if you're a man or a woman

But everything you posted is exactly the same kind of mansplaining style going on from a lot of Sanders supporters in telling people how the convention works and what it all means. When they're FLAT OUT WRONG.

But I know, I know, 2016 is "different."

Besides, mansplaining is NOT a racist comment.

[passiveporcupine]

29. Sanders' supporters are not all men

so it's not mansplaining. That is Bernie Bro talk and it's disgusting.

You are correct. I had a brain fart. It's sexist, not racist.

[pdsimdars]

30. This one makes it clear for me.

from an article on Huff Post by Seth Abramson

If a Democratic primary candidate can win 59 percent of the Party’s “pledged” (primary- and caucus-won) delegates or more, the primary is decided by pledged delegates; if a Democratic primary candidate fails to meet that threshold, they are considered by DNC electoral processes to be a weak front-runner and the nomination is finally decided, instead, by “superdelegates” — who can express support for a candidate at any time, but cannot commit themselves to anyone (i.e., cast a binding vote for any candidate) until the Democratic National Convention in July; superdelegates are unlike pledged delegates in this regard because, while pledged delegates also do not vote until the Party’s convention, they cannot change their votes from what their state’s voting results pledged them to be — though it has been argued by some that in fact they can change their votes at the Convention, with this argument most recently having been advanced by Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.


It makes it very clear that since neither candidate will have the required number of pledged delegates it will not be decided UNTIL THE CONVENTION and that is in July. Hillary will NOT be the nominee in the middle of June as some like to fantasize.

[Garrett78]

34. I don't think anyone disputes the difference between "presumed" and "official."

2008 was more competitive, yet Obama was the presumed nominee long before he was the official nominee. That's how it always works. Nobody is disputing that or engaging in fantasy.

Practically speaking, it was apparent by mid-March of this year that Clinton would end up with a clear majority of pledged delegates. Technically speaking, of course the primary season wasn't over in mid-March. Just because people said it was "over" doesn't mean they thought it was literally over.

[pdsimdars]

40. " Nobody is disputing that or engaging in fantasy. "

Then how is it that this site is declaring Clinton the nominee as of June 16?

That, my friend, is "engaging in fantasy." She will NOT be the nominee as of June 16. Period. She will NOT have the required 59% of pledged delegates, so it will have to be decided at the convention. To presume otherwise is fantasy.

[Garrett78]

41. This site, like the media and millions of people, will declare her the "presumed nominee."

That's what happens following the conclusion of every primary season. Obama wasn't at 59% in '08, but he was still the presumed nominee. A candidate could be at 89% and that person would still be nothing more than the presumed nominee. Nothing is official until the convention. Nobody disputes that.

Moving from presumed to official is just a matter of time.

[pdsimdars]

45. Guess you too didn't read their actual criteria

why am I not surprised.

Have a nice day.

[Garrett78]

46. The 59% thing?

Again, Clinton will be closer to 59% than Obama was in '08. Obama was declared the presumed nominee right after the primaries concluded. So, why would this year be any different?

[Lord Magus]

103. Seth Abramson's opinion piece is not the criteria.

Get that through your skull.

[passiveporcupine]

35. I think the issue here is

Their insistence on saying she will be the nominee, instead of saying the 'presumptive' nominee. Little technicality, but a huge difference in attitude and I hate attitude where people try to push their reality on others, because they are so determined to push their agenda.

And yes, Hill Camp, I already know you will jump in here to say that's what I'm doing. )

[beachbum bob]

50. the media proclaims presumptive nominee..... that IS the historical FACT

if facts matter

[passiveporcupine]

51. I never said they didn't nt

[beachbum bob]

53. I didn't see where in your OP you made it clear it was the media and its a historical

policy for last 40 years

[passiveporcupine]

55. my issue is not with the media declaring the presumptive nominee

it is in basing it on numbers that include superdelegates before the race is over.

[Garrett78]

58. For all intents and purposes, it's over once a candidate achieves a plurality or majority.

The media (and others) have always taken that stance. It's nothing new. Once a candidate is guaranteed to finish with the most pledged delegates, that person becomes the presumed nominee, especially if hundreds of superdelegates have already expressed support for that candidate.

And then along comes the convention to make it official and drop balloons.

[passiveporcupine]

59. I sometimes think that many of you never even read what I post.

[Garrett78]

60. What point is it that you don't think I'm addressing?

The candidate with the most pledged delegates becomes the presumed nominee (we've known since mid-March that Clinton will be that candidate). That person becomes the official nominee at the convention. That's how it works. Every time. Whether they have 51% of the pledged delegates or 59% of the pledged delegates or 89% of the pledged delegates.

[passiveporcupine]

61. sorry, not playin any more

I can't waste my time on people who refuse to see the point of the discussion.

[Garrett78]

62. The point you made in the OP is not one anybody is disputing.

Nobody disputes the difference between presumed and official. Nobody.

[lancer78]

71. In mid-March

there was still plenty of states out for Sanders to catch up. Clinton supporters have fantasies as well.

[Garrett78]

72. There were well-established patterns at that point.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, by the way. Following Super Tuesday (March 1) and Clinton's 5-state sweep on March 15, it was very apparent that Clinton was stronger in diverse, delegate-rich states. And that Clinton was stronger in primaries, as opposed to vote-suppressing caucuses. You see those patterns, you look at the contests to come, and you see the writing on the wall.

While Sanders hadn't been mathematically eliminated from reaching 2026 (even now he's not mathematically eliminated), there was no reason to believe those patterns would suddenly get flipped upside down (it would have taken something truly monumental). One could see that Clinton's lead would ebb and flow a bit, but it wasn't going away. And that's precisely what has happened. Not because some of us are fortune tellers, but because patterns were quite evident. We weren't reading tea leaves. We were simply observing what was obvious.

Numerous requests were made back then for someone to demonstrate with delegate math a realistic path to victory for Sanders, and delegate calculators were readily available. The *only* attempt I ever saw was one dubbed The Bern Path, but it was utterly unrealistic, as I pointed out at the time (it had Sanders winning by large margins in PA, NY, NJ and CA, while only losing by 10 points in MD and 16 points in DC). And even then The Bern Path had Sanders just barely finishing ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates. Why was this unrealistic example the only one put forth? Because there simply wasn't a realistic path for Sanders, not after those aforementioned patterns became so evident. The denial of mathematical and demographic realities justifiably earned the term BernieMath.

[Demsrule86]

64. You are not correct

Hillary will be the presumptive nominee on June 7th...the supers will tell Bernie no way...we will not overturn the votes of millions including women and people of color...which would be viewed by many as a racist outcome. I still believe despite all the BS spouted by the campaign, Bernie will do the right thing and concede before the convention. If he doesn't both he and his revolution are finished.

[LoverOfLiberty]

66. Next Tuesday

Everyone but the most rabid Sanders supporters will have accepted that Hillary will be the nominee.

You can kick, scream, pout, beg, deny, bargain or wail. It won't change a single thing.

[LiberalFighter]

73. There is no Democratic National Convention Rule that says

unpledged delegates can't be counted.

[passiveporcupine]

75. Show me their rules

Thanks

[LiberalFighter]

107. Rules

Rules

Rule VIII C 7b

A majority vote of the Convention’s delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate. (This includes both pledged and unpledged delegates)

[passiveporcupine]

108. Yeah, that's what I thought. You've got nothing.

I said I'm done with this thread and I meant it. Not getting into this again. I could explain to you why that rule isn't saying what you want it to say, but I've already said it so many times, I'm not getting into this again.

Buh Bye!

[Buzz cook]

77. A small point, 2383 includes super delegates.

Half of all delegates supers and pledged is 2383.

Half of pledged delegates alone is 2026.

If you want to use 2383 then include super delegates. That leaves Clinton needing 71 delegates.

If you use only pledged delegates then use 2026. That leaves Clinton needing 257

But as you said in you OP the convention rules say 2383

[passiveporcupine]

78. Sorry, I don't think so.

If you win 2383 pledged delegates, it leaves your opponent with 1669

So assuming your opponent has 1669 and contests the convention, and somehow wins all of the supers, they would end up with 2383 too. They can tie you, but they can't beat you. And nobody will ever get "all" the supers.

That does not mean they get to count supers to be 'presumptive' nominee. It just means that with that number of pledged delegates, you cannot be beaten at the convention.

[Lucinda]

80. 4,765 - 2383 = 2382

2383 is Half plus 1

I have no idea where you are getting your 1669 number from...

[passiveporcupine]

82. i used a spreadsheet with the numbers Buzz gave me

Based on the numbers Buzz Cook gave me (I don't know if they are correct)

He said:
half of the pledged delegates are 2026

So total pledged is 4052

He said 2383 is half of the pledged, plus half of the supers

So how many are half of the supers?
2383 - 2026 = 357

So double that for total number of supers (714)

So if the guy with only 1669 pledged delegates wins all the supers at the convention,

1669 + 714 = 2383

So the most he can win of combined delegates is 2383, the same number as the pledged delegates won by the 'presumptive' nominee.

Now if there is an error in my numbers here, it's in the numbers I was given by Buzz Cook, I think.

Please show me where I'm wrong.

[Garrett78]

85. There are 4051 pledged delegates, which is why 2026 is considered a majority.

It wouldn't make sense to have an even number of delegates. Not when having an odd number is such a simple way to avoid a tie.

[passiveporcupine]

89. Thanks, that makes more sense to me too.

Buzz should have said half minus one or half plus one. Not sure...I'm not going back to look at it again.

[passiveporcupine]

83. From the numbers Buzz gave me

I came out with a total of 4766 total delegates...so I think he rounded his numbers up.

[Buzz cook]

81. By the numbers.

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

4763 total delegates both S and P. 1/2 is 2381.5. plus 1 to make a majority and rounded you get 2383. Though some sources just go with 2382.

Are you following?

So if you have 2383 it is mathematically impossible for a tie.

Remember that the 4763 number includes super delegates. So it doesn't matter how the super delegates are apportioned.

And when it comes to the presumptive nominee the numbers stay the same before they are counted at the convention and after. The person with the majority wins.

[passiveporcupine]

84. The numbers you gave me weren't all the numbers I needed,

so after doing calculations, I came out with a different total of one more total than the real total. Somewhere it got rounded up.

But this changes nothing about my point. It just removes the possibility of a tie, which I thought was weird anyway. Once you win 2383 pledged delegates, nobody can beat you at the convention, even if they win all the supers.

MY point still stands. The supers are not to be included in that number before the convention.

[Lucinda]

86. The ones who have committed to the candidates already will be counted in next weeks totals

and once Hillary reaches 2383 she will have the majority and be the presumptive nominee. That may happen this weekend if more of the currently uncommitted supers join the delegates from the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico who vote this weekend, but New Jersey is most likely to put her over the top next Tuesday before the California totals come in.

[passiveporcupine]

87. OK, if you say so.

[Lucinda]

91. It is what it is, and has been that way since the supers came into being.

This isn't a new process.

[passiveporcupine]

92. OK, if you say so.

I'm not playin your game any more. Buh bye!

[Garrett78]

93. No game is being played. This is simply what happens. Every time.

Actually, you don't seem to disagree. We're pretty much saying the same thing you said in the OP, which is that Clinton will be the presumed nominee and that she won't be the official nominee until the convention. Just like with Obama in 2008, which was an even tighter race than this year's.

Honestly, I don't understand what it is you're disagreeing with folks about. We're saying the same thing you said in the OP. Presumed now. Official later.

[passiveporcupine]

94. The only thing I'm arguing about is the date she becomes presumed

and that is dependent on whether or not you roll in the supers before the convention. Yes, she will almost certainly become the presumptive nominee...but only after all the primaries are done and she comes out with a majority of pledged delegates.

Not after NJ by rolling in those supers.

That's my only complaint.

that means that she is going to the convention without sufficient pledged delegates to automatically win the actual nominee. But some people here, like the poster above, refuse to accept that. So, no...we are not all in agreement. You and I are (I think). Thank you.

[Garrett78]

99. She'll top 2026 pledged delegates on June 7 regardless.

Whether she's the presumptive nominee after the New Jersey polls close or after the California polls close doesn't seem to make much difference. I don't have any issue with waiting until she reaches 2026 pledged delegates to refer to her as the presumptive nominee. I just don't think it really matters.

The fact of the matter is hundreds of superdelegates have already expressed support for Clinton and they aren't going to switch. Pledged delegates are free to switch, but nobody talks about that happening. Because we just accept that they won't. Well, I also accept that superdelegates won't either--not when Clinton is clearly going to end up with more pledged delegates.

[passiveporcupine]

102. I agree with you except for one point

The 2026 does not count any more...only the 2383 does. If we didn't have supers it would be the lower number...but now the requirement is 2383. You no longer win with just half of the pledged delegates. If you don't get the 2383 number before the convention, you have to wait for the convention, because until the convention is over, there is no guarantee you have over half of the total votes. Unless, of course, your opposition concedes. Then everyone knows it's over.

If neither candidate can pull off that many pledged delegates, you still get the "presumptive" nominee when the primaries are over, just for having the majority of pledged delegates, but because of the system, you can not count the super delegates until the votes are in and you actually win that 2383 number.

Until someone shows me in writing that is not the case (I mean a printout of the DNC rules on how it works), I'm going with what Luiz Miranda said. I consider him more of an expert on this than anybody on this forum (no slight intended).

[lancer78]

101. Donald Trump

was considered the presumed nominee before voting had ended on the Republican side. And before you say he has a majority of pledged delegates the truth is he does not. His delegate count includes 126 "unbound" delegates that do not have to vote until the republican convention.

Is the media wrong to consider him the presumed nominee?

[passiveporcupine]

104. HIs opposition conceded.

I don't know anything about the republican system. It's a little different than ours. But with ours, until you have than magic number, or your opposition concedes, the real race is still alive...even if we all pretty much know it's over, because nobody will switch that many supers for someone with a minority of pledged delegates.

Bernie's only real chance of winning in this race, is if he were to magically win so many delegates from the remaining states that he actually pulled ahead of Clinton (and we all know that is not likely to happen), or if he shortens the gap so much that it's almost a tie...in which case he might still be able to flip enough votes at the convention to win.

None of this is likely to happen, so please Hill camp, don't get your shorts in a wad...just understand that what some of you are claiming is not just a sure win, for Hillary, but already done, and unmoveable. it really isn't. It's a probably win, or a 'presumptive' win, but not a given. Something unusual and remarkable could happen and Bernie could still win.

[lancer78]

105. But the media did

not call him the presumptive nominee until he reached a "majority" of delegates. Look at the CNN page before and after he reached the majority. Before, he did not have "presumptive nominee" next to his name. Now he does.

Also, I have used the slur "Billary" on this site. I don't think a lot of HRC supporters would put me in her camp.

[Garrett78]

88. Which is what happened in 2008, as well. It happens every time.

Nobody disputes the difference between "presumed" and "official," but the fact of the matter is the presumed nominee always becomes the official nominee. 2008 was a much closer contest and Obama was further from the magic number than Clinton will be this year, yet Obama was declared the presumed nominee shortly after the last primary. And then he became the official nominee at the convention. This year will be no different.

[Lucinda]

90. Yep.

The only thing we don't know yet, is if it will happen before NJ votes. Estimates have her somewhere around 30ish short after VI and PR vote. Might be tempting for some of the SD holdouts to go ahead and hop on. If not NJ should tie it all up with a nice big bow.

[Buzz cook]

95. No it does not stand

Remember the 2383 includes super delegates in the count.

Just visit the web site I linked to and figure this out your self.

[passiveporcupine]

96. Of course it does.

Because at the convention the supers count and that number is what it takes to there can not be an upset at the convention, because not enough votes can be flipped to beat that number. That is the only reason that number is required to be met with pledged delegates, prior to the convention, because at the convention, supers can and do flip votes.

That's all it means.

[Buzz cook]

97. Nope

Sorry passiveagressiveporcupine. It doesn't work the way you think it does.

[passiveporcupine]

98. Then explain this to me

Say the supers were enough to win the actual nomination...in other words, they count before the convention, as all the pledged do, so if one candidate gets that magic number with supers, there cannot be an upset at the convention by flipping votes.

If that is true (and it's not) there would be no need to vote at the convention and absolutely no reason for anyone to contest a convention, as they could never flip and win super votes, because they are already out of the race...the race is over and the nominee has been declared the winner.

You see, even if you add them in before the convention, it is not final until the convention is over and the votes can be flipped (and often have been) and the person who is still in the race and contesting the convention, can (not has in the past...but can) win.

Your assumption makes absolutely no sense.

Now I've got to run to town before the stores are all closed, so I'll have to leave you with this.

[Garrett78]

100. Pledged delegates aren't bound either, but nobody argues that they'll switch.

It seems the only time superdelegates switch, with rare exceptions, is when they're switching *to* the person who won the most pledged delegates. There's simply no reason to believe a substantial number of superdelegates are going to switch to Sanders, just as there's no reason to believe pledged delegates are going to switch to Sanders (even though they technically could).

[passiveporcupine]

106. This is my final post in this thread

I'm done playin the games. Too many people who refuse to see reality because it scares them too much. There are only so many times I can explain myself before I realize I'm getting played.

So here...I'm leaving you all a treat!