Bernie Sanders Needs Less than 57 Percent of the Remaining Vote to Win

[cal04]

For a long time now, CNN and other mainstream media sources have misled voters about the results in the Democratic primary. They’ve often combined pledged delegate totals for each candidate, which are tied to voting results, with super delegate totals, which have nothing to do with voting and are subject to change at any time. While most super delegates currently support Hillary Clinton, they almost certainly will end up backing whoever wins the pledged delegate race (if they don’t, they will be brazenly flouting democracy in a way that could quite possibly destroy the Democratic party), so including them when reporting election results makes Clinton’s lead seem much larger than it actually is. The networks occasionally note that there are two different types of delegates, but they rarely explain that the superdelegate totals don’t really matter and more often than not display delegate counts across the bottom of their broadcasts which, by erroneously suggesting a huge Clinton advantage, may discourage people from turning out to vote.

In case that practice isn’t bad enough, CNN decided to move its delegate math from misleading to downright false during Saturday’s Alaska and Washington caucuses. “Sanders would need 75% of remaining pledged delegates to win the nomination,” a rotating banner at the bottom of the screen declared, a statement that was egregiously wrong.

According to CNN’s own numbers (note how their headline graphics show the misleading combined delegate totals without explanation), Clinton had 1229 pledged delegates and Sanders had 934 before the caucuses took place. CNN estimates a total of 4053 pledged delegates, so a candidate would need 2027 (just over half) to win the nomination. Going into Saturday’s caucuses, Sanders therefore needed 1093 (2027 – 934) of the remaining 1890 (4053 – (1229 + 934)) pledged delegates, or just under 58 percent of those still on the table.

I decided to tweet this fact at CNN. They did not correct their banner. One of their pro-Clinton commentators, Bakari Sellers, then proceeded to echo their inaccurate number. When someone on Twitter pointed him to my tweet, Sellers responded by claiming that he was actually referring to a total that included superdelegates. Yet in addition to the fact that he had explicitly said “pledged delegates” on air, the number that included outstanding superdelegates – which still would have been misleadingly high – would only have been 68 percent (the only way to get 75 percent would have been to include superdelegates in Sanders’ target delegate total while excluding them from his possible delegate count, an approach which is obviously incorrect). I gave Sellers this information. He did not respond.


http://34justice.com/2016/03/27/bernie-sanders-needs-less-than-57-percent-of-the-remaining-vote-to-win/


Thank you Thom Hartmann
https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/714067940941963265

[cloudythescribbler]

1. After WI, 57% or even 54% of the remaining vote is a significant hurdle ... though possible

I have been a Bernie supporter since day 1, including multiple donations. There seems to be a polarization at DU between those who treat the campaign as over (though Hillary herself kept up to the end in 2008, with little or no negative effect on the Nov general election), while others act as if Bernie not only closing substantial gaps in the polls in NY,MD and CA but swamping Hillary in what in many cases (like PA) are closed primaries, which take away Bernie's huge advantage with Independents is an almost even bet.

I suppose that the latter argument is a reaction in part to the smugness and smarminess of the Hillary backers here, which is all the more peculiar because if their candidate gets the nomination, getting the support of nearly all the Sanderistas -- those who vote and those who didn't -- would be essential to victory.

I notice that there has broken out some argument about "open primaries" here on DU. But the issue isn't "open" primaries but "closed" primaries, with mixed (allowing Independents but not registered Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries) being a sufficient reform and demand. That ditches the canard about Republicans being able to veto candidates they don't like, but still allows for the ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL participation of Independents.

If Bernie after WI is able to even break even w/Hillary given all the "closed" contests, I would be very impressed and so should the media etc. And there is a WHOLE LOT to demand of the Democratic Party even if Bernie isn't the nominee. Then there are complaints about the losers determining the direction of the Party, when a significant voice including for Hillary's base (if they are unified with certain non-ridiculous demands) if Bernie is the nominee.