Hillary already has 20% of the delegates needed to win

[UpstateSCHokie]

Despite only tying one caucus and losing another primary by a wide margin. This is your "democratic" party.

=============================

Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

That's due to superdelegates, the party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whom the voters back in the primaries.

Following the New Hampshire primary, The Associated Press surveyed the party's 712 superdelegates.

Clinton has added 87 to her count, while Sanders added just 11. That gives the former secretary of state a total of 481 delegates, while the Vermont senator has 55.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.

Superdelegates can change their minds. But if they continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly, Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide to catch up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-13-06-34

[RiverguyVT]

socialism at work.

I love the memes over this issue.

[TheH2]

Despite only tying one caucus and losing another primary by a wide margin. This is your "democratic" party.

=============================

Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

That's due to superdelegates, the party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whom the voters back in the primaries.

Following the New Hampshire primary, The Associated Press surveyed the party's 712 superdelegates.

Clinton has added 87 to her count, while Sanders added just 11. That gives the former secretary of state a total of 481 delegates, while the Vermont senator has 55.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.

Superdelegates can change their minds. But if they continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly, Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide to catch up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-13-06-34

They are kind of worthless at this point. If the popular

[BigDave]

They are kind of worthless at this point. If the popular

Hillary won the popular vote last time, but Obama prevailed on superdelegates.

[TheH2]

They are kind of worthless at this point. If the popular

Hillary won the popular vote last time, but Obama prevailed on superdelegates.

Obviously did not finish my thought. He won the most delegates by vote. The super delegates then followed.

[absolutvt03]

Superdelegates can change their minds.

Clinton has 0 superdelegates until they actually vote. This idea that they will vote for her regardless of what happens in the primaries is typical misinformation. If Sanders wins a bunch of primaries and pledged delegates the superdelegates will follow. I wish people would stop spreading this nonsense.

[UpstateSCHokie]

Superdelegates can change their minds.

Clinton has 0 superdelegates until they actually vote. This idea that they will vote for her regardless of what happens in the primaries is typical misinformation. If Sanders wins a bunch of primaries and pledged delegates the superdelegates will follow. I wish people would stop spreading this nonsense.

What's the point of having super-delegates pledge their support before the primaries are over then (some before the primaries even begin)? What's the point of having super-delegates at all if they are just going to go along with the primary results? They are there to put their thumbs on the scales.

[absolutvt03]

Superdelegates can change their minds.

Clinton has 0 superdelegates until they actually vote. This idea that they will vote for her regardless of what happens in the primaries is typical misinformation. If Sanders wins a bunch of primaries and pledged delegates the superdelegates will follow. I wish people would stop spreading this nonsense.

What's the point of having super-delegates pledge their support before the primaries are over then (some before the primaries even begin)? What's the point of having super-delegates at all if they are just going to go along with the primary results? They are there to put their thumbs on the scales.

You're moving the goalposts. I'm not arguing that superdelegates can have an impact. I'm arguing that speculating that they will decide the election regardless of what the people say is disingenuous. Do you acknowledge that they can change their minds and therefore the idea that Clinton has "20% of the delegates needed to win" is misleading at best? In a close race, yes superdelegates are going to matter and in that regard if it's close then Clinton will most likely win. But the idea that Sanders is going to win primary after primary only to have all the superdelegates vote against him regardless of the pledged delegates he's picked up is complete fantasy.

Edit: Clinton had more superdelegates than Obama at one point in 2008.

Clinton knows this all too well; it’s exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.

Superdelegates are mathematically relevant when a candidate has 41.2 percent to 58.8 percent of elected delegates. Below that range, a candidate couldn’t win a first-ballot majority even with the votes of every superdelegate; above that range, the superdelegates’ help wouldn’t be necessary to clinch the nomination.

That’s still a fairly wide range, however. In theory, for example, a candidate could lose elected delegates 58 percent to 42 percent — equivalent2 to losing the average state by 16 percentage points — and still win the nomination through superdelegates.

My guess, especially given what we saw in 2008, is that superdelegates wouldn’t feel comfortable weighing in anywhere near that much on Clinton’s behalf. In the case where she’s won only 42 percent of elected delegates, she’ll have lost to Sanders all over the map, and any conceivable “electability” gains from nominating Clinton would be outweighed by alienating at least half of the Democratic base.

If it’s closer, however, superdelegates could make a difference. Suppose that Clinton wins 47.5 percent of elected delegates to Sanders’s 52.5 percent — equivalent to her losing the average state by 5 percentage points. According to our formula, Clinton would then need only about 64 percent of superdelegates to win the nomination, a figure that seems realistic.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sup ... y-clinton/

[133743Hokie]

Superdelegates can change their minds.

Clinton has 0 superdelegates until they actually vote. This idea that they will vote for her regardless of what happens in the primaries is typical misinformation. If Sanders wins a bunch of primaries and pledged delegates the superdelegates will follow. I wish people would stop spreading this nonsense.

Agree. Still very fluid

[ip_law-hokie]

Despite only tying one caucus and losing another primary by a wide margin. This is your "democratic" party.

=============================

Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

That's due to superdelegates, the party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whom the voters back in the primaries.

Following the New Hampshire primary, The Associated Press surveyed the party's 712 superdelegates.

Clinton has added 87 to her count, while Sanders added just 11. That gives the former secretary of state a total of 481 delegates, while the Vermont senator has 55.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.

Superdelegates can change their minds. But if they continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly, Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide to catch up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-13-06-34

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... the-voters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UpstateSCHokie]

Despite only tying one caucus and losing another primary by a wide margin. This is your "democratic" party.

=============================

Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

That's due to superdelegates, the party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whom the voters back in the primaries.

Following the New Hampshire primary, The Associated Press surveyed the party's 712 superdelegates.

Clinton has added 87 to her count, while Sanders added just 11. That gives the former secretary of state a total of 481 delegates, while the Vermont senator has 55.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.

Superdelegates can change their minds. But if they continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly, Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide to catch up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-13-06-34

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... the-voters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couple of things here:

#1 That guy is a jackass that's just speaking out of his ass. I think there may be a couple of states (maybe his is one) that has a few unbound delegates, but unlike the democrat party, the vast majority of delegates are bound by the primary winner - at least through the first ballot of the convention. So while he may say the delegates choose the candidate, in most cases they cannot just vote for who they want. They "choose" as long as their choice is the same as the primary voters in their state and in compliance with the rules.

#2 The most significant difference is you don't have super delegates in the GOP that openly pledge their support to a candidate before the primaries take place, much less the convention.

So to equate the two systems of picking a nominee is foolish.

[ip_law-hokie]

Despite only tying one caucus and losing another primary by a wide margin. This is your "democratic" party.

=============================

Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

That's due to superdelegates, the party insiders who can support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whom the voters back in the primaries.

Following the New Hampshire primary, The Associated Press surveyed the party's 712 superdelegates.

Clinton has added 87 to her count, while Sanders added just 11. That gives the former secretary of state a total of 481 delegates, while the Vermont senator has 55.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.

Superdelegates can change their minds. But if they continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly, Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide to catch up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-13-06-34

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... the-voters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couple of things here:

#1 That guy is a jackass that's just speaking out of his ass. I think there may be a couple of states (maybe his is one) that has a few unbound delegates, but unlike the democrat party, the vast majority of delegates are bound by the primary winner - at least through the first ballot of the convention. So while he may say the delegates choose the candidate, in most cases they cannot just vote for who they want. They "choose" as long as their choice is the same as the primary voters in their state and in compliance with the rules.

#2 The most significant difference is you don't have super delegates in the GOP that openly pledge their support to a candidate before the primaries take place, much less the convention.

So to equate the two systems of picking a nominee is foolish.

Got it! I'm glad we have it all figured out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk