2016 Postmortem

auntpurl

(4,311 posts)

18. You can think that if you choose.

Tue May 31, 2016, 07:49 AM

May 2016

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Oh my goodness, Bernie supporters, PLEASE READ [View all] auntpurl May 2016 OP

I believe we can confidently expect a disaster Voice for Peace May 2016 #1

You're welcome. auntpurl May 2016 #9

OK I will appoint you Supreme Commander of the Universe, but maybe only on one condition... Voice for Peace May 2016 #21

I'm going to hang that virtual vow on my wall! auntpurl May 2016 #25

ok but it doesn't work unless Bernie wins. But don't despair, because don't forget that facts don't exist as future entities.. Voice for Peace May 2016 #44

Super Delegates should NOT be counted in the total until the convention when they vote. bkkyosemite May 2016 #52

The number without SDs is 2026 lagomorph777 May 2016 #41

"The whole system ... is convoluted." Yeah it is. (nt) apnu May 2016 #16

Bernie!Bernie!Bernie! coco77 May 2016 #2

women candidates only get credit for 78% of the delegates that men get credit for nt geek tragedy May 2016 #3

Hmmm, that might help explain the berniebrain Hortensis May 2016 #5

there's no evidence that what Bernie is doing is about ego. that's called you projecting your Exilednight May 2016 #45

That's not my belief, Exilednight, nor what Hortensis May 2016 #56

Huh, you left out the only actually important number, which is 2026 Recursion May 2016 #4

Yes, thank you for that addition. auntpurl May 2016 #7

she only has 1769.....she needs enough California delegates to push her over that line. virtualobserver May 2016 #8

I agree. When she has the majority of pledged delegates, that's when she has the sole and exclusive geek tragedy May 2016 #13

VI and PR in the meantime too though. auntpurl May 2016 #17

Thank you. riversedge May 2016 #43

I understand your points Tom Rinaldo May 2016 #6

No, clinching will be in 7 days when the major media, Hortensis May 2016 #10

Nope. morningfog May 2016 #36

Clinching means the same when a woman does it as it did when men did it geek tragedy May 2016 #11

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #38

No need for replacement or machinations - simply nominate the safer candidate: lagomorph777 May 2016 #42

Unless she wins 2383 delegates before the convention, she has not clinched. Now, whoever wins MillennialDem May 2016 #48

Incorrect. That is not the standard that has been applied to men so it will geek tragedy May 2016 #50

Ummm, it's math. Effectively over and clinching are not the same thing. I don't care that it was MillennialDem May 2016 #53

Same standard applies to Clinton as applied to Obama. geek tragedy May 2016 #54

What the fuck. It's math. Clinch means guaranteed victory. That is impossible unless 2383 delegates MillennialDem May 2016 #55

She is almost certain to reach a majority of pledged delegates by June 7 auntpurl May 2016 #12

Yes I think we agree on all counts Tom Rinaldo May 2016 #19

"I would however still press her to adopt policies and priorities that were important to me, and to auntpurl May 2016 #20

And that, of course, aside from actually determining who is our nominee, is why all votes count Tom Rinaldo May 2016 #26

You're right. auntpurl May 2016 #27

Hillary clinching the nomination could be the disaster. Vinca May 2016 #14

so what you're really saying is that she can't clinch the nomination until after the SDs vote at the Exilednight May 2016 #15

You can think that if you choose. auntpurl May 2016 #18

Bernie has a right to try to steal the nomination after losing the vote, just as everyone else has geek tragedy May 2016 #22

Exactly. bvf May 2016 #37

I question why they believe that they can spam the boards with this tripe Exilednight May 2016 #46

The management seems to be OK with it. bvf May 2016 #57

I've been watching the process since I was a child, the 'super delegates' are not historicaly Bluenorthwest May 2016 #23

Superdelegates (or unpledged, if you prefer) didn't come into being until 1984. auntpurl May 2016 #24

Your OP is very condescending and presumptive, it's full of inaccurate and semi accurate rhetoric Bluenorthwest May 2016 #33

Wow. Ok then. auntpurl May 2016 #34

It's not semantics. It's also not an opinion, the terms are in our Party's regulations which you Bluenorthwest May 2016 #39

Ok nt auntpurl May 2016 #40

You were not paying as close attention GulfCoast66 May 2016 #29

Yeah, I know that. I did not say otherwise. Bluenorthwest May 2016 #35

The entire process the year was supposed to be a coronation for Mrs Clinton Doctor_J May 2016 #59

Why are you arguing truth, math, facts, and logic with BSers? rock May 2016 #28

Being snide as usual, nothing better to do? Logical May 2016 #30

Yeah, it's boring rock May 2016 #31

You guys are so clueless, but not a shock. Her name gets votes. Nt Logical May 2016 #32

The MAJORITY of pledged delegates is 2026, not 1664.... What this means is that if you MillennialDem May 2016 #47

"Barring a disaster"? I think you mean, despite it. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #49

. Dem2 May 2016 #51

In every contested primary since adoption of super delegates, the winner is announced including SDs Gothmog May 2016 #58