Superdelegates may have the ultimate say.

[Garrett78]

There's a decent chance nobody will have the requisite number of delegates after the first ballot.

Just thought I'd remind folks that the superdelegate rule change may end up giving superdelegates more power than ever before.

[still_one]

1. If Biden gets in the race I don't think so. After Super Tuesday, I would speculate at most 3 to 4

candidates

[Garrett78]

9. I think we'll be down to 3 or 4 (maybe 5) after Super Tuesday. But a tight 3-way race...

...lends itself to the prospect of nobody getting to 2382 on the 1st ballot.

Not likely, perhaps, but far from impossible.

[still_one]

38. I agree. I just think it isn't as likely if Biden runs. I think most of the Hillary supporters

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2019, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

will vote for him in the primaries. I probably will

If he doesn’t run I would speculate the odds for a brokered convention will increase dramatically, and the odds also increase that we will have trouble making it in 2020

I think Biden has the best chance of capturing some red states along with the rust belt of all our candidates, and without some of those states, and the way the electoral college is setup the path to the WH is nearly impossible

[Demsrule86]

43. I would vote for Biden.

[SFnomad]

2. Stop this pot stirring already. It's VERY unlikely to happen

Before the first ballot is cast, many of these people will have already dropped out of the race.

[Garrett78]

7. The vast majority will have dropped out before the convention. That's a given. But...

...see post #6. In a tight 3-way or even 2-way race, it's certainly possible that nobody will have 2382 pledged delegates after the first ballot.

[SFnomad]

10. It's no less possible than is has been in the last 40 years ... and it's NEVER happened yet

At this point, to dwell on it is just to stir shit and irritate the BS cheerleaders about Superdelegates, a hot button issue for them. We don't need to worry about this for more than 12 months, if ever.

[Garrett78]

15. 2020 will be the 1st time ever that superdelegates can't vote on the 1st ballot.

Perhaps you missed the rule change. Getting to 2382 without superdelegates is obviously tougher than getting to that number with superdelegates. Especially if we end up having a tight race.

The last 40 years are irrelevant since there's a whole new rule in place for 2020.

[SFnomad]

19. FFS, I didn't miss the rule change, the first round doesn't include Superdelegates

And to clinch the nomination, a person only needs to get over 50% of the pledged delegates. They don't count the number of Superdelegates in the formula and then not allow them to vote.

The number to win the nomination will be different if it goes to a second round, because it will then include the Superdelegates.

You're making a big deal about something that is not likely to happen.

[Garrett78]

23. If only 2026 is required, that does help. But in a tight 3-way race...

...that number may not be reached on the 1st ballot. The potential is there for 3 contenders to all be under 2026.

Making a post and "making a big deal" are not synonymous.

[SFnomad]

24. You are making a big deal over something that has not happened to Democrats in nearly 70 years

We won't know for another 14 months if this is even remotely in the range of possibilities. It is just idiocy to continue going on about this now.

And you are. You're going on and on and on and on and on about it.

Replying to everyone that is telling you this is lunacy.

[Garrett78]

25. Again, making a post or engaging in discussion is not synonymous with "making a big deal."

The last 70 years don't have anything to do with this, because there's a brand new rule in place. And we're more likely than in the past to have a tight race involving more than 2 people, which is a testament to the size and strength of our field--as well as the fact that there's no clear frontrunner.

[SFnomad]

26. The "brand new" rules are the roughly the same rules for the first round that we had, before we

added Superdelegates some 40 years ago. This isn't new and it's not rocket science, it's the same old math. The chances of a brokered convention, going to a second round are very, very slim. I'm not saying it can't happen, but to be making such a big deal about this more than 10 months before the first primaries is just nuts. We won't know until about April of next year if this is even remotely likely. We will worry about it then. Anybody trying to make an issue of it now, is just someone that is trying to cause trouble.

The chance of it happening is way less likely then you are trying to con everyone into believing.

[Garrett78]

27. You've made a bigger deal out of this than I ever intended.

Posting a thread and "making a big deal" are not synonymous no matter how many times you suggest otherwise.

No clear front-runner, a large and strong field...the odds of a 2nd ballot are greater than normal. That's all.

Peace.

[SFnomad]

28. For someone that never intended to make a big deal out of this, you replied to

still_one
brooklynite
aikoaiko
Codeine
and myself.

Everyone that said you're wrong, with you continuing to try to justify what is far less likely to happen than you're pushing.

Buh-bye.

[Garrett78]

29. I never said it was likely, just that there's a "decent chance."

Oh noes, I replied to people who replied to me. Therefore, that somehow equates to "making a big deal."

Whatever.

[SFnomad]

30. There isn't a "decent chance" either. Outside chance ... at most. And only if

two of the candidate are very close and there is a 3rd or more with a not so insignificant amount of delegates. And like I said, this hasn't happened in nearly 70 years. And yes, all the last 70 years worth are comparable, even if you don't think so.

It really is time to quit this nonsense. We will know much better about 13-14 months from now, if this is anything to worry about.

[Garrett78]

31. I'll let your 8th post of the thread go without a reply. Peace.

[SFnomad]

32. And that's like your 12th or 13th reply of the night ... buh bye

And we all know you're going to have to reply to this too.

[Cha]

34. Jeeze! I gotta give you props, Garrett..

for keeping your cool after that barrage of rude "big deal" insults.



So if no one has the required number of delegates.. then the Super Delegates step in?

And, I've seen "pot stirring" and you're not doing it.

[Garrett78]

35. Thanks, Cha. It's all good.

Rather, it's "no big deal."

[Cha]

36. Yeah, 'cause you're Cool.

Inspiring

[CentralMass]

39. Lets take a look at the New Hampshire primary.

Sander won the New Hampshire primary 60% to Hillary's 38%. A 22 point margin.
New Hampshire has 24 conventional delegates and 8 superdelegates. By the number Sanders proportionally recieved 15 of the standard delegates and Hillary received 9. The "landslide peice of this.
However 6 of 8 of NH' superdelegates declared for Hillary and that it is how it was reported, as a 15-15 delegate tie..

Based on the number of Democrats who voted in NH, those 6 superdelegates usurped the will of about 60,000 New Hamshire voters by erasing Sanders 22% margin of victory.

Instead of a win for Sanders, here is how it was reported.

https://www.wmur.com/article/sanders-won-landslide-nh-democratic-primary-vote-but-clinton-ties-him-in-delegate-count/5208538

"Sanders won landslide NH Democratic primary vote, but Clinton ties him in delegate count"

https://www.apnews.com/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8

Superdelegates help Clinton expand her lead despite NH loss
"
WASHINGTON (AP) — So much for Bernie Sanders’ big win in New Hampshire.

Since then, Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 more superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, dwarfing Sanders’ gain from the New Hampshire primary, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders has added just 11 superdelegate endorsements.
After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It’s essentially a parallel election that underscores Clinton’s lopsided support from the Democratic establishment."

http://nj1015.com/clinton-expands-lead-in-delegates-despite-sanders-win-in-nh/CLINTON EXPANDS LEAD IN DELEGATES DESPITE’ WIN IN NH"

"Despite Bernie Sanders' win in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is adding to her big lead among the delegates who will choose the Democratic nominee for president.

After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 483-55, including two new superdelegate endorsements she picked up on Friday, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that underscores Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment"


This scene repeated itself in numerous states.

[Garrett78]

40. There are all sorts of headlines (CNN, WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, etc.) making it clear...

...that Sanders had a big win in NH. A quick Google search makes that clear.

The media was quite favorable toward Sanders in 2016. Nonetheless, the race was essentially over on Super Tuesday. And that didn't have anything to do with superdelegates.

[CentralMass]

42. There are many similar to those that I posted at news sites across the country.

Here is Rachel Maddow getting absolutely giddy explaining it. Video and text at the link.

Jump to the 11 minute mark if you want to cut to the chase.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/clintons-nh-loss-softened-by-delegate-math-620784707540

[brooklynite]

3. No, there isn't a decent chance...

First, not every current or prospective will stay in game until the Convention. Some will drop out before voting. Some will drop out after a poor performance in IA or NH. Some will drop out after the first Super Tuesday when their money dries up. And when they drop out, they'll release their delegates and likely endorse one of the front-runners.

Second, not every candidate will GET delegates. While our Primaries and Caucuses are generally proportional, many of them also have a 15% threshold level. The candidates who get 2, 3, 8, or 12% of the vote will end up getting no delegates. The result will again be delegates concentrated at the 2 or 3 candidates at the top.

[Garrett78]

6. Of course most of the maybe 20 candidates will be gone by Super Tuesday, but in a close 3-way race..

...the requisite number of delegates is a pretty high bar. Unlike in the past, superdelegates won't have a vote on the 1st ballot. Therefore, a candidate must get to 2026 on pledged delegates alone. Nobody getting to that number on the 1st ballot is certainly possible in a tight 3-way race.

[USALiberal]

14. We know you LOVE Superdelegates! nt

[Gothmog]

4. There may well be a brokered convention that goes beyond the first vote

[aikoaiko]

5. How is this more power than ever before?

I'd rather their disproportionate power be a back-up plan than the plan.

But ideally super delegates have to go.

[Garrett78]

8. Because they could actually determine the ultimate outcome.

In a tight 3-way race, it's possible that all 3 will be well short of 2382 pledged delegates. The superdelegates would then have a hell of a lot of say in who wins.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just saying it's possible as a result of the rule change.

[aikoaiko]

21. Couldn't they have done that before?

[Demsrule86]

44. The super delegates would then vote for the candidate that has the most delegates as

they have always done. There have been times when candidates did not have the minimum number of delegates and the supers put the winning candidate over the top. Thus,it is no different. No super should vote to overturn the will of the people. And I doubt they would.

[Demsrule86]

45. Then it is the candidate with the most delegates who wins...very doubtful there will be a tie.

[Codeine]

11. Oh knock that off.

Way too early for that kind of hysteria.

[SFnomad]

12. +1

This is just ridiculous at this point in time.

[Garrett78]

16. It's not hysteria and I'm not saying it's likely. But...

...see my various replies to others. In a tight race, the rule change increases the likelihood that we'll have a 2nd ballot.

[Codeine]

18. There isn't going to be a second ballot.

Stop creating theoretical crises to stir shit.

[Garrett78]

22. While it may not be likely, it's more likely than you may think.

In a tight 3-way race, it's certainly possible that nobody gets to the requisite number of delegates on the 1st ballot.

[LAS14]

13. Could you remind me of the rule change? I thought they were eliminated.

[Garrett78]

17. They weren't eliminated. They just can't vote on the 1st ballot.

But a candidate still has to get to 2382 delegates. So, while it may not be likely to happen, the possibility of needing a 2nd ballot is greater than some may believe.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

20. If it ends up with the superdelegates, that's what they are there for.

It makes total sense to this Democrat that our party includes our leadership in the selection process for our nominee.

Especially in an election that's gone into multiple ballots.

[FBaggins]

33. Without Hillary in the race, it's unlikely to matter

There isn’t any reason to think that any one candidate will have all of the SDs locked up early. That was a function of a well-know rock-steady Democrat faces by only a single opponent who lacked the connection to the party that she had.

With the current mix (especially with so many senators in the mix), the SDs are split in multiple directions. They won’t be voting as a block.

IF we get to a brokered convention, my guess is that the 3rd- place candidate will be more of a king maker than the SDs.

[Awsi Dooger]

37. There would never be a rule change making second ballot a "decent chance"

I don't need to know the details, although they were provided in this thread. Big picture focus means there would have been outrage as soon as anything like that was seriously contemplated, let alone put into place.

Since I don't remember that type of outrage, it didn't happen.

It is so relaxing to ignore details, and rely on foundational logic.

[Renew Deal]

41. I think you're right

The rule change is asking for trouble

[honest.abe]

46. I think Kamala Harris is going to have a huge day on Super Tuesday..

and then cruise to the nomination after that.