Ah after waiting for the delegate count... it might still miss one or two

[nadinbrzezinski]

I had to do math... and kids, there is this chance that neither Trump, or Clinton, will get the necessary pledged for a first vote. I predict contested conventions. Yes, the SDs are there to try to prevent that, but this could turn to be quite entertaining when all is said and done.

Better stock up on popcorn. I am glad I am neither in Philly or in Cleveland. Or I would be stocking up on gas mask cartridges as well.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/04/06/sanders-and-cruz-with-solid-wins-in-wisconsin/

[cosmicone]

1. Hillary still will have MORE delegates

and she will be nominated quietly. Once the gravy train is over, Bernie would not want to go down in history as someone who helped elect Cruz or Trump and he WILL stand down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. WHOOSH

[cosmicone]

12. Oh brother ... the thing will be over before your popocorn pops

Bernie doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

He cannot have more delegates than Hillary and even if she has 5 more delegates, she will be the nominee on the first ballot. Bernie people can just go pound sand after that. (While the popcorn is popping of course.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. You mean it's been over since Iowa

yet it cannot be put to bed. FUNNY DAT!

[cosmicone]

19. It will be put to bed.

However, look on the bright side -- Bernie has served his purpose of making it look like a tough fight, helped keep Hillary in the news all this time and made Hillary not appear extreme left for the centrists in the GE.

I'll send Bernie a dollar for all that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The only thing I agree is that it will be put to bed

but since I am not a silly partisan and I rely on data... I would not swear she is winning Hell, I was positive Trump was... and now that DATA says it is likely going to an open convention, popping the popcorn.

And silly wabbit that was not his purpose. I expect those who prefer the establishment to miss why those who prevent peaceful revolutions, ensure the violent ones. That was said by JFK in his inauguration before you scream un-American or something silly like that. I expect that from your type. Now go on little silly one.

[cosmicone]

33. She has won TX, MA, IA, IL, MO, OH and will win NY, NJ, PA, MD and CA

That is winning.

Winning insignificant caucuses in Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska (all of whom have populations than one high-rise building in NY) is nothing to brag about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. and lost the last few contests

momentum is on his side son. Yes, I am going to be just as dismissive of you as you are of the rest. Of course I expect nothing less from neo liberals.

[cosmicone]

40. You don't get momentum from Idaho, Alaska and Utah

Big state people know those states are not important.

WI will be discounted as well because it was an open primary and 27% of the voters were free-stuff independents. They won't be allowed to vote in NY, NJ, PA, MD.

At some point, Bernie will need 118% of the remaining delegates to clinch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. aha

the only reason I am still responding to your bullshit is that it is hilarious as hell. You should try stand up commedy

[malokvale77]

116. Now nadin that's funny.

You and I both know that RepubliCons don't succeed at stand up comedy. Just ask Dennis Miller. They're more pathetic than funny.

[islandmkl]

152. i always figured you were a TW/DLC-type neo-lib....

but 'FREE-STUFF' ??...you couldn't get through a series of posts without hitting that meme?

you just don't know you are a Republican, with or without the (D)...

[SheilaT]

80. And some of them were so decisive!

three tenths of one percent in Iowa, but some large number of her delegates didn't make it to the second round just recently, so she lost a couple there.

Two tenths of one percent in Missouri. Less than one percent in Illinois. Under two percent in Massachusetts. And she was supposed to win in Michigan. Better than a 99% chance there, said Nate Silver. Guess what. She lost there.

Plus, Bernie has been outperforming his polling hugely. He's going to win big in Wyoming and then will start campaigning in NY. Where he campaigns, where people actually get to hear his message, he wins. So I would not count the NY chickens before they're hatched if I were you.

[NWCorona]

123. Until they release the raw data

I'm gonna continue thinking that Bernie won Iowa.

[LonePirate]

82. There will not be an open convention.

One of the two candidates will almost certainly have a majority of pledged delegates (barring the low probability of a tie). The supers will circle their wagons around that candidate. The other candidate will bow out and the nominee and the selected VP nominee will arrive as heroes to a jubilant convention in Philadelphia.

[frylock]

78. Keep your dollar, Maddi.

Go buy yourself a sucker.

[CorkySt.Clair]

28. More "exclusive" analysis from the OP

That you just couldn't get anywhere else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. You are free to NOT READ IT you know

[CorkySt.Clair]

37. Absolutely

I'm looking forward to not reading it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. good, to help you

there is this thing called IGNORE USE IT

[Betty Karlson]

22. Great cartoon!

Cognitive dissanance is an amazing thing, isn't it? Conversations like these are like trying to argue academic theology with a "charismatic" evangelist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Yup, I have far more in depth conversations wiht my sun conure

she even laughs (for real actually).

[zappaman]

141. I don't doubt that at all.

But your candidate has won the last few, so congrats!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

27. goalposts moved. check.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

103. This would be all very exciting regardless of which candidate you support were it not

for the downright hatred shown towards the candidates, one in particular.

Were the winner able to use all this work and attention in a positive way, the Democrat would win even in the face of election fraud that will prevent or miscount several million votes.

[malokvale77]

121. That whole election fraud argument...

would work better if the campaign that is benefiting from it would call it out rather than cry "sour grapes".

[geek tragedy]

3. Sanders will not humiliate himself by contesting the convention

if he is behind in pledged delegates.

That is an absurd fantasy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Is that today's talking point, or just a complete lack of imagination

why do you think he will take this to the convention? Apart of the pledged delegates and party platform? Jesus, some folks really lack imagination. I never discount something that ideologically I might not like, just because ideologically I lack the imagination to think of it.

[geek tragedy]

23. If Clinton finishes 250 pledged delegates ahead of him

and has 450 superdelegates endorsing her, that would place her well above the 2383 needed to be the nominee.

He would have zero chance of being the nominee under those circumstances.

ZERO.

He could certainly negotiate for the party platform as a condition for his playing nice and enthusiastically endorsing her.

But, he would become a giant joke, a laughingstock, the poster boy for sore loserism, if he tried to actively contest the nomination at the convention under those circumstances.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Right now the difference is... 221

I rely on data. Have a good one.

[joshcryer]

99. Think about what this says about the character judgement...

...the integrity judgement people have for Sanders here. They actually think he'd recind his repeated pledge to back the winner. Hell, he said it again in the "controversial" NYDN article.

[joshcryer]

76. He has said as much.

People are living in fantasy land. Think about it. In 2008 we were seriously having arguments about Clinton contesting the nomination, yet she nominated Obama by acclamation (they didn't publicly count all the votes, it was voice vote).

Now, Sanders, being from Vermont would be one of the last states called, but as he stood with his delegation he'll do the same.

[geek tragedy]

79. he's pumped up a lot of people's expectations with the "we're taking

this to the convention" line.

Campaign doubling down doesn't seem to help matters.

[joshcryer]

89. Well, I'm sure having 40% of the delegates gives him sway with the drafting committee.

If only to avoid a late night vote being tabled to put single payer in the platform.

Clinton and Obama had virtually identical platforms, so there was never any risk of that.

Remember, the delegates put God back in the platform in 2012 during a late night voice vote (he'd specifically been removed), they have the power to put stuff in there.

[geek tragedy]

95. he'll get a very few particular things thrown in there.

maybe statements of principle about universal health coverage, or some other area where people think they disagree when they really don't.

overall document is obviously going to be the nominee's since she has to run on the thing.

this will probably end well. it needs to

[malokvale77]

124. Why do you have a problem...

with Sanders insisting that his supporters have a platform at the convention?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Yep. Chicago '68 became very entertaining after foisted Humpty on us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. That is precisely the kind of fun

I am thinking off. Also what happens if Bernie is ahead in the count? I know this is unthinkable to the serious people, but it is possible. (Even if hard to get there)

Oh the plus side, this year I will vote for more than just delegates

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Well, Hillary says they're just in it for a laugh. Like at Kent State and Birmingham.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Hey as Press I am there just for the photos

this damn dangerous demonstration, we netted some good photos.

?w=479&h=319&crop=1

?w=371&h=247

These kids, I tell ya, they are deceiving, they were really throwing molotov cocktais

?w=700

This kid, right after that the cops had to repress him

?w=700&h=&crop=1

Youth, I tell ya... only there for the protest... just took hours, the first in line were there at 7 in the morning.

[cosmicone]

16. Free stuff lacks the gravity of the Vietnam war.

This will not be 2008 and it will not be 1968.

Your dreaming is affecting your reality testing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. hmm hmmm... so kids are dumb and unserious

the same shit was said about kids in 1968, they were not realistic, and they did not understand gravitas, I see that is the talking point of the day though. And in this case, it started from the top. Those kids will really like that though, really.



So this has been put to bed for months, yet it LIVES. Perhaps some of your assumptions are wrong. For the record, I have been right in calling this a CHANGE ELECTION

[cosmicone]

29. The kids in 1968 had their lives on the line due to Vietnam

Free tuition doesn't have the same gravity or importance.

Free tuition so that they can have more beer at parties and have wilder spring breaks?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. You mean the free tuition that the State of California used to have

before Reagan? Are you truly a Reagan Democrat? I wonder.

For the rest of the class, CA is just one example, It appears to me our neo liberal friends want to bring the country to the level of... Bangladesh.

[cosmicone]

38. Bernie is toast

You guys are just trying to keep morale up.

He won WI yesterday but he fell BEHIND -- didn't reach his target despite an open primary.

Wait till the NY media gets done with him -- he will be black, blue, swollen and limping (politically speaking - not physically) in a couple of weeks.

Check my signature graphics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Ok, for the record, I report on this shit

I give two shits who your party nominates. But you might as well not use RW, neo liberal, trickle down talking points. But I am one of those silly independents that you will need in November, so keep alienating the voters with your stupid shit. Especially the ignorant posts about free stuff. We used to do that in this country, FOR REAL, when did your party become the party of no we can't? No need to answer.

[cosmicone]

45. Why are you promoting a socialist -- I mean "democratic" socialist

on a DEMOCRATIC site against a DEMOCRAT then if you're an independent?


Aren't you in the wrong place?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Now a tad of red baiting? Love it

Senator McCarthy called, he would like you to you take a post as an assistant at the HUAC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I see the school system failed you

no wonder you do not want any of that "free stuff"... like fire departments and roads, which are core issues in a democratic (socialist) society.

I really feel pity for you. I really do. Have a good day... next I know you will call him a NAZI as well.

[cosmicone]

56. He is promising free stuff that he knows he can't deliver

It is a manipulative strategy to get low-information college brats all excited and throw in words like "revolution" to boot.

There is NO revolution. Sanders is flailing and fledgling. The only reason he is around is that free stuff aficionados people are sending him checks -- sort of like buying a lottery ticket. One damn well knows one will lose the dollar but oh that outside chance of a powerball win is so exhilarating.

Sanders will not be able to attract money after NY and he can't afford the fight in California where TV costs alone will be >$10 million.

It is over for Sanders and the sooner you accept it, the better our chances in the GE will be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Not only did the school sytem fail you

but that ability to use the google did as well. How to pay for this is out there in web land. You know you could use the google. Hint, it involves high frequency trades, and this is not his idea either. This is done in OECD economies.

Sad part, the kids you dismiss as being idiots, many of them KNOW THIS SHIT.

[cosmicone]

66. That is all superfluous -- it cannot be done.

It is easy to say we'll tax trades -- but it will lower the yields on mutual funds and adversely affect people's 401-Ks and IRAs.

Economics is not for the land of unicorns and sparkleponies. Let adults handle the economy and tax issues.

Otherwise we'll have an 18 trillion deficit that will put the great depression to shame. Add a trade war to that and we'll have 28% unemployment.

We tried giving the economy to toddlers during the GW Bush admin -- we should never repeat that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Yup the new Democratic slogan

NO WE CAN'T.



HOW INSPIRATIONAL!

[cosmicone]

69. Meh ... fail n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Hey you are the one with that inspirational message

NO WE CAN'T

[Warren DeMontague]

93. "I STILL BELIEVE IN A PLACE CALLED NOPE"

Sigh.

[frylock]

81. You've had those graphics up for how many months now?

But I do suppose they help to improve your morale.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Well there are other graphics I think off when I see his posts

[malokvale77]

133. That "stick a fork in it"...

is what the youth are about to do to both the Democrats and GOP.

When will they ever learn?

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. From what I am hearing from the kids (and older voters)

there will be some hell to pay.

[malokvale77]

154. Being one of the older voters...

with kids and grandkids, I know that to be true. There will be hell to pay. They have no future otherwise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. You know, when I get outside the American media bubble

and CNN-I even does it, the talk about climate change is a thing... but here, they are trying hard to suppress it. The fact we are having discussion on this is quite frankly baffling, how they are trying to suppress this.

[malokvale77]

159. Yup

I'm beginning to think that the USA has the dumbest people on the planet Earth.

I'm as baffled as you nadin.

[Mudcat]

110. Kids in 2016 have their lives on the line due to Syria & Iran

Warhawks from both parties, with enormous Establishment backing, have been beating the war drums for some time now.

As the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme...

[malokvale77]

128. The kids now days still have their lives on the line.

For many reasons, including stupid unnecessary wars.

I won't bother listing the calamities that younger generations are facing, because of people with your mindset.

I applaud them for rejecting more of the same.

[wendylaroux]

30. no republicans talking points on this site. please leave

[cosmicone]

59. No ... mine are realistic talking points of what can actually be done.

No Unicorn J. Sparklepony here.

[wendylaroux]

63. "free stuff",so much a conservative view.

gross.

[cosmicone]

67. If one gets stuff for free, it is called "free stuff." n/t

[morningfog]

73. If one pays in taxes for the programs, it is not free.

[frylock]

84. Some people are just too fucking stupid to figure it out.

[malokvale77]

134. Your so called "realistic talking points"...

are nothing more than "talking points". There is nothing realistic about them.

[LonePirate]

102. GD:P would be almost empty without right wing talking points.

Supporters of both candidates use them frequently, if not exclusively.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. A scary looking bunch of funseekers. Probably drug addled (GASP!) Socialists!!

Good photos of Americans participating in democracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. That was one long day

and when Trump shows... am afraid we will need to be ready for some actual fun if you get my drift. I doubt the Secret Service will let me bring in the party flavors though.

[dchill]

47. Really great photos, nadin!

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. It was a really long day though

[dchill]

51. I'll bet!

[malokvale77]

136. I know it was.

My daughter and brother attended a Bernie rally here in Texas. It was a very long and exhausting day for them. Yet somehow they left more invigorated than before.

Thanks for the updates.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

6. I still remember it like it was yesterday...

We were told he wouldn't even win in Vermont... Boy has he come a long way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Actually they did concede VT

but nothing else.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

11. I wasn't around here then...

But in media they made it sound like even Vermont was a long shot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I know

[SidDithers]

14. Nonsense...nt

Sid

[Viva_La_Revolution]

31. another no content post by dithering sid

[cosmicone]

52. He is a man of few words... few powerful words. n/t

[noretreatnosurrender]

135. LOL

When I see his posts it always reminds me of the scenes in movies where the drunk guy is passed out and then he wakes up and says a few words and passes back out again. Later in the scene he does it all over again. lol Just kind of pops in and then pops out until he shows up and does it again.

[Fuddnik]

90. .

[dsc]

25. Let's say for a second this happens

why, oh why, would any person who voted for Hillary dream of showing up in November under this scenario? If she wins the majority of the pledged delegates and has a majority of the votes, her supporters would have every right to refuse to accept a candidate who isn't her. Add in the clear racial division and somewhat less clear gender one and the problem would be even greater. This would be a literal refusal to count black and brown votes by a white elite to give a white male candidate a nomination he didn't win. She has won the black vote in every state by at least double digits and in some cases upwards of 60 points. Even if you think blacks are misguided to have voted the way they did, the voted that way and would have every right to be livid at their votes being flushed down the toilet by a party that they have stuck with for decades.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. For the same reason the Sanders do

the party is splitting, as the Dems continue their path towards a party of business. For the record, both parties are.

by the way, that white male candidate, is part of a recognized ethnic minority.

[dsc]

42. An ethnic minority that has been over represented in the Congress

unlike either women or blacks. But the fact remains, if Sanders wins because a bunch of elites gave it to him (and frankly if Hillary were to win that way) the other side would have every right to sit out the election. frankly I would have a very hard time voting for Bernie or Hillary under that scenario and I am firmly committed to vote blue no matter who. The whole reason we are supposed to accept these ludricrous byzantine caucus process is that the person who wins the most delegates wins. If we now decide that the candidate who was the clear choice of minorities, wins the most delegates, wins the most votes, loses because the elites side with the candidate of white males and non Democrats that would be a gigantic fuck you to our most loyal constituency.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. So... this is a historic race

first time we have both a woman and a Jew with viable campaigns, By the way, thanks for the example of what I expect to see starting now.

And for the record, it will not be easy, but the person coming with the most delegates might be Sanders.

[dsc]

48. and if it is I will support him

despite the fact I think he is a demagogue who only gives a damn about economics. I am blue no matter who but would have a problem being blue no matter how. If either candidate uses superdelegates to overturn a clear win in pledged delegates that would be a major problem for me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Well I think Clinton and Trump are demoagogues too

so there.

I also believe we are playing a fine game of pretend elections. I cover this shit, and we try to be very much data driven, but that does not mean I believe in the election and democracy faerie. Though who I vote for in these pretend elections, is still a secret I keep, and the last time I felt in love with any politician was in 2008... so you know where I am coming from.

An open convention for both parties... hey, ink, by the bucket full

I have also been told that once you start covering politics, you really become cynical about it.

[daleanime]

39. Why would some ever want to support.....

this.

[dsc]

44. because she got the most votes and delegates

funny we didn't this bull shit in regards to Kerry, or Edwards, or Biden.

[daleanime]

54. Wow, a great one two combination.....

both 'we like that the game is rigged for the house' and 'this must be sexist'.

One-if you want support, you hold fair, honest elections. If you're unwilling to, don't complain about lack of support.

Two-Why should I care about the gender of someone who will continue to get people killed?

But don't worry about answering, at this point in primary I pretty well know the responses, you have yourself a lovely day.

[dsc]

57. I have had problems with caucuses for years

you can look at my posts to see that, but that said this is the system we have. She won, and the places she won her delegates and which gave her her lead even Bernie's campaign said he decided not to contest. That isn't Hillary cheating, that isn't voter suppression, that is Bernie's campaign deciding black voters don't matter and if he doesn't think they matter now, then why should they think he would think they matter if he gets a nomination by overruling their votes?

[villager]

58. Gas masks, indeed. A double-helping of 1968, anyone?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. And the sad part here is that some posters

are missing that reference.



It is actually hysterical

[beaglelover]

60. Stop using this site to get hits on your online blog.

[villager]

65. Yes, dammit, *stop linking to things!*

Other people on this site never link to things!

[beaglelover]

91. Most of us don't link to a blog we're the editor of just to get the hits on our website. She does.

And it's gross.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. May I suggest you use the ignore button if it bothers you so much?

It is a tool the site owners gave you. I understand why you might have trouble with it, use them tools.

[villager]

101. Poster does seem to be rather heavily, emotionally invested in the linking

And as you point out, there are easy remedies to such anxiety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Yes there is

[Punkingal]

115. At least she has something useful, insightful, and thoughtful to say here.

So what if she posts a link to her blog...better that than Blue Nation Review.

[TM99]

151. I think it is gross

when I notice all of these dormant 2008 accounts that soundly sprang to life in the last year in support of Clinton.

It really burns my britches when those same accounts attack posters that have been active here for a whole hell of a lot longer.

It completely chaffs my balls when they pretend that they have some sort of authority to speak on a site topic that if it was a problem, Admin would have already addressed.

We are in agreement. Some things really are just gross.

[cosmicone]

61. Gas mask cartridges?

Bernie delegates are threatening consumption of massive amounts of beans and cauliflower?

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Ignorant making fun of this

But I expect nothing less from you. It speaks to who you are

[NWCorona]

126. Another poster said Susan was tarred and feathered yesterday

Talk about being oblivious and willing to make light of anything to get ahead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. I know

we work with data, not fantasies... but partisans (on both sides to be fair) are difficult to talk to. That said, math is a talking point now. (Has been for months) one that is starting to blow in faces.

[NWCorona]

131. I think it's funny how everyone is a "math" expert

When they really should brush up on the paradoxes of motion.

I for one see a very clear path for Bernie. It will be challenging and depends on a set of variables but still very doable. Especially with recent events.

I'm just like you. Enjoying my popcorn!

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. There is antoher trend here

It is not that 538 is wrong... he is not if you do not take into account late surges in support. like 72 hours of an election. The first few I took it as a fluke, now it is a design feature of this election. His model is not accounting for that. He is the statistician... he should have noticed that with the model.

[SheilaT]

149. That became crystal clear in Michigan.

Nate, and a lot of pollsters from what I can tell, are incapable of capturing the kind of steady increase in support Bernie has been getting all along.

Back when he first jumped in, Clinton out polled him by some 60 points. Not pretty, except if you were a Hillary supporter and wanted her to get the nomination with the least amount of effort possible. Bernie was polling in the single digits, and every time it was pointed out that the early polls simply showed name recognition, we were mocked by the Hillary contingent. Then he started getting his message out, and we were told he'd be lucky to win New Hampshire and it would be all over by Super Tuesday.

Here we are in April, he's been whittling away at her delegate lead, and they are so furious that he won't just go away it would be funny if they weren't being so obnoxious about it. I've been adding names to my Ignore list, somewhat to my dismay because I had taken great pride in never putting anyone on Ignore in some 14 years here.

And now one of HER minions has said they'll do their best to destroy Bernie, screw party unity, and they accuse the Bernie supporters of being divisive. Talk about bizarro world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. It is 2008 all over again

and I suspect it might end in the same way. I have not seen internals, but her latest tactics can only be explained by that. If she loses NY, she loses the electability argument. Especially if she does such by a largish, percentage. (And it places CA in play)

This will give SDs something to mull about.

[malokvale77]

138. The thing about "math" that DU experts miss...

is the "variables" that are put into the equation will equal different results.

Never mind the whole reaction to action phenomenon.

[NWCorona]

139. Yup!

[malokvale77]

156. F@#k the math...

it's about physics.

I am reacting to the actions of a party that quit caring about me and mine.

[NWCorona]

157. It really seems that way

And this cycle is making that more and more clear.

[malokvale77]

160. Yes...

and thank you for fighting against all that shit.

[joshcryer]

74. If it wasn't contested it 2008 with a 62 delegate spread...

...then it won't be in 2016 with a similar spread (or higher).

Unless you're suggesting Sanders won't release his delegates.

The RNC is definitely being contested, with probably Kasich vying for VP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. As you guys keep saying this is not 2008

and this is a change election. Those dynamics were partially present, and we had negotiations for shit. When Sanders reportedly was offered a talking spot at the convention, not even in prime time, that added to why they are taking this all the way to the convention.

And my question is, yes there are models when this can happen, that if he comes into the convention with more pledged delegates do you think Clinton will release her delegates? By the way, none in their right mind will say this is easy, but it is not out of the realm of possibility either.

For the record, this is why Clinton is going to go under the belt, She is afraid she could lose this shit (again)

[joshcryer]

83. Sanders doesn't equivocate. Clinton could have done something.

But it would have ended her career, and she still clearly wanted to give it another shot.

I don't think Clinton would do it if she had the popular vote, that was her argument then, but she didn't have the delegates or the super delegates, she was behind by every metric that mattered.

And it's absurdly unlikely Sanders will be ahead by any of them (supers, popular vote, pledged delegates).

Sanders will vote by acclimation when his state is called and he and his delegates will work late into the hours to discuss changes to the platform.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. I would not speak in absolutes Josh

I know you guys prefer to do that.

And with that, have an excellent day, Your responses are not nearly as humorous as some others.

[joshcryer]

94. I am absolutely certain Sanders won't contest.

As far as the politics of the personal, I'll refrain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Oy

I would never say absolutely sure. That is one lesson learned the hard way covering politics.

[DanTex]

77. Umm, you do understand that with only two candidates on the Dem side,

and an odd number of delegates, one of them has to end up with a majority.

Math and all...

[msanthrope]

85. Don't bring math and facts into this. Nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. And you do understand (no you don't) that you need to hit a certain number

to have a clean path, and SDs don't count until you hit the floor?

Really, no clue how this works. Not that this shocks me. For the record, the magic number is 2382... that number is in stone. So if one of these two does not reach that number it is not a clear path That is until the SDs jump in. But really, they both need 2382 PLEDGED delegates... or a combo of supers and pledged to get a clear 1st round of voting.

The fact that highly partisans do not know this is no longer surprising, nor distressing, even though it should be.

[DanTex]

92. Of course supers count. There will be one round of voting, both supers and pledged,

and since there are only two candidates, one will end up with the majority.

Math.

This idea of yours that you need 2382 pledged delegates is hilarious. You realize that in 2008 Obama didn't have enough pledged delegates to win without supers either. And what a crazy brokered convention that was!!! lol

Oh, and I'll save you the suspense. Hillary will have more pledged delegates, and her supers aren't going to abandon her, so she's going to win on the first ballot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. They do not count until they sign their name on dotted line

and you do not understand that. Not that this surprises me in the least. I think the conure gets it, but she has heard me go over the math more than once.

So with no further

[DanTex]

104. ...and once they do that, one of the two candidates will have a majority. First ballot. Math.

And if Hillary has more pledged delegates, obviously she's going to keep her supers, and take the nomination. They're not going to switch to Bernie if Bernie's behind in pledges.

The only way this gets interesting is if Bernie ends up with more pledges, because it's not clear that the supers will go over to him in enough numbers, particularly since he only became a Dem to run for president, he's not helping out on down ballot races, and it's doubtful that a self-described socialist will hold up to GOP attacks.

But, like I said, no worries, that's not going to happen, because Hillary is way ahead in pledged delegates and Bernie's running out of white caucus states.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Oy

no use

Have a wonderful day.

Really.

No use in trying to explain how Bernie could actually (it is hard but possible) be ahead in the SD count when they reach the floor. I know you lack imagination, but if that is the case, and he is ahead, and the SDs give it to HRC, congrats you just gave the election to the Republicans. And this is how a contested election can happen.

If there is anything that is crystal clear is that you guys lack imagination.

[DanTex]

109. I agree, stick with the smilies. Math is hard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. I have done the math

and you lack imagination

[joshcryer]

117. Let's see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. I already told you that I am not going to continue wasting my time

And I do not have to show nothing to you. Have a good day continuing this conversation with yourself.

[joshcryer]

122. Hopefully.

It really does seem like I'm talking to myself, what with this argument having been hashed out before. Ain't happening, no how, no way. Sanders ain't contesting anything, to suggest it attributes an extremely low opinion of the man.

[malokvale77]

140. They hate birds dontcha know? LOL nt

[joshcryer]

106. Um, SDs count as their state delegations vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. No josh they can vote with their states, or not

and you know this. What you probably do not know, is that right before the vote, this is documented in a form, and there is actually a line for a signature.

More of this

[joshcryer]

114. Each state delegation is called upon to vote.

Of course there is a piece of paper, I don't know what that has to do with anything. Every single delegate has to sign their delegate paperwork. Each delegation has to be certified by the party.

All I'm saying is as the numbers come in, from each state delegation, they reflect the superdelegate. That's why when Clinton called for Obama to be nominated by acclimation she was behind by several hundred votes, even though she only lost by 62 pledged delegates. The supers are counted as the vote unfolds, on the first ballot, decided days if not weeks before the convention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. oy

Not gonna continue to waste my time.

I got work to do... and yes, this is a waste of time. Have a good day... myself, a lot of reading to do on income inequality. Free hint, that is partially what is fueling this change election. Good day

[joshcryer]

120. Have a nice day.

For what it's worth this will be tested soon enough. Bookmarking for when the time comes. I had this same debate with madfloridian over this same topic in 2008. I know quite a bit about how the convention works, as you know from our past discussions.

[Beacool]

100. Meh, nothing that exciting will happen at the Democratic convention.

The super delegates will go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, just as they did in 2008.

Republicans, on the other hand, may have a free for all. The party wants to do whatever they can to stop Trump from getting the nomination.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. I was wondering what might happen if both parties stole the election from the voters.

I am too young to remember the convention of '68 but it sounds like that is what could happen if the election is stolen(not that I'm trying to make myself sound young. I'm 40, just wasn't around for the '68 convention.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. For all the talk of third party, Trump has no time to do that

and I suspect we will have a lot of civil disobedience. Hubby and I have been going over how exciting (not in a good way) both fire season and civil disobedience season could be.

Many of the posters here have no idea of the anger that is out there.

[malokvale77]

147. Indeed it is the "anger", that they do not understand.

They prefer to mock with the "free stuff" meme.

Their bubbles are about to burst.

[SheilaT]

153. Had Kennedy lived, 1968 might well have been a brokered convention

for the Democrats, as none of the three men running (Kennedy, McCarthy, and Humphrey) had anything close to a majority of delegates. But it's extremely important to remember that in that year only 14 states had primaries. All the others selected their delegates to the national convention in what we lovingly call "smoke-filled rooms" where the party big shots in each state decided who to support, and selected the delegates that way.

But Kennedy was murdered, his 393 delegates were no longer pledged to him, and the party vastly favored Hubert Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy. In any case, McCarthy had not done very well in the primary season and had the fewest delegates (258) of the three from the primary process.

Very, very different system of nominating back then, and it started changing immediately after that year. At some point every single state went to holding a primary or caucus, and in 1984 the Super Delegate system came into play.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. And I suspect that this year we will see changes

to the nominating system for BOTH parties as well. There are echoes to 1968 (for both parties )

[sadoldgirl]

129. There is one great difference from 68, Nadin:

The repug party was totally united.

I have never seen both parties at once
getting to the brink of being broken up.

We are living not only in interesting times,
but also very disturbing ones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. I agree

the better analogy is 1824...

[noretreatnosurrender]

137. We were talking about this very thing

at work today. If it was just one party or the other it would be easier for the establishment to put it down. With it being both parties against the establishment of both parties it's going to get ugly if they try to shove establishment candidates on us. Not only that but the rank and file on both sides of the aisle who are against the establishment are talking with each other and sharing information. They are both seeing what's happening with wide open eyes. We don't agree on a lot of issues but on this one we are in sync. That's real dangerous for the establishment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. This unrest and talking by the little people

started at Occupy camps all over the country. Some conversations were really weird, but the conversations have not stopped. There was a full on propaganda effort against OWS, and the rest that came with it.

In CA it probably started in 2009.

But this anger is just roiling under the surface and I noticed that propaganda is becoming stronger.

[noretreatnosurrender]

145. Yes it did

and yes the propaganda is being pushed so hard these days that it's harder for them to hide that it's propaganda. I'm just hoping we can get through the election without an "event" that they will use to distract voters who are just waking up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. Well we already got warned of rolling blackouts for the summer

and yes, I consider that as one of those events.

[noretreatnosurrender]

148. The Best of Times

and the worst of times. One thing is for sure they are INTERESTING times.

[Renew Deal]

144. The super delegates will make a choice and there will be a first ballot winner