HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Democrats » Hillary Clinton (Group) » Why Clinton does not need...

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:45 PM

Why Clinton does not need all 2,383 delegates solely from pledged delegates.

Clinton does not need over 600 pledged delegates beyond what she already has (1770). DNC rule states...
VIII. Procedural Rules of the 2016 Democratic National Convention
C. Order of Business
7. Roll Call for Presidential Candidate:

b. A majority vote of the Convention’s delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate.

There are 4,765 pledged and unpledged delegates. The winner needs 2,383 delegates and it does not have to be all pledged delegates. Pledged and unpledged delegates are a subset of all delegates. Just as DNC members, Party Leaders, and congress members are a subset of the unpledged delegates. So it doesn't matter if unpledged delegates are part of the 2,383. If they all 2,383 had to be from the pledged delegates why would unpledged be needed????

And for those that say unpledged delegates don't count until the convention the same applies for pledged delegates. But before the convention we know how the pledged delegates will vote and we will also know how the unpledged delegates will vote or that are uncommitted per DNC rules.

There is no DNC rule that prohibits unpledged delegates from declaring their preference. Otherwise, the over 500 unpledged delegates that have already declared would be in violation. This is what Seth Abramson is saying over at Common Dreams. Facebook Link

There is a rule that states:
IV. Certification Requirements
C. Presidential Preference:

Ten (10) days after the completion of the state’s delegate selection process, each state’s Democratic Chair shall certify in writing to the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee the presidential preference (including uncommitted) of the state’s delegates.

13 replies, 3070 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:47 PM

1. Didn't the same happen in 2008?

 

Needing the Supers to reach the needed number to get the nomination? I heard this, I believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:54 PM

4. Yes.

They are claiming that the majority must be only from pledged delegates but the majority is of all delegates. Both pledged and unpledged. It would had been even more difficult under that criteria in 2008 because there were 852 unpledged delegates instead of 741 now and there were fewer pledged delegates in 2008 (3,566) than in 2016 (4,051). They would need 2,209 in 2008 which is 61.9% of pledged delegates. 2016 percent is 58.8%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #1)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:58 PM

7. Yes. Obama had 1,828 1/2 pledged delegates and he needed 2,117. He had 478 superdelegates that put

him over the top.

I just posted a post about this below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:49 PM

2. Rules AND math? Someone's battleship is sunk. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:53 PM

3. They are such sticklers for rules.

When they are applied to Hillary!

Same standards, please! 2,383! That's it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:55 PM

5. The Sanders campaign moved the goal post for Hillary, they did not have same rule

For Sanders. Now if Hillary has to have her required delegate count in pledged delegates, this would be a rigged system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:56 PM

6. At the end of the primaries, Senator Obama didn't have enough pledged delegates, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Candidates_and_results

In order to secure the nomination at the convention, a candidate must receive at least 2,117 votes from delegates (a simple majority of the 4,233 delegate votes, bearing in mind half-votes from Florida, Michigan, Democrats Abroad and the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries


In the end, Senator Obama had 1,828 1/2 pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton had 1,726 1/2. It were the Superdelegates who pushed Senator Obama over the 2,117 needed.

Are we now to assume that since he didn't have 2117 pledged delegates in 2008 when he came to the Convention that he's been an illegitimate Democratic president? Because that's what Sanders is selling to his supporters who appear not to know any better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #6)

Fri May 27, 2016, 08:59 PM

8. Don't forget the part where unpledged delegates declare their preference

within 10 days of final selection process. If they haven't decided they would be uncommitted otherwise they are for Clinton or Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:28 PM

9. Isn't it sad that this has to be explained to people around here several times a day, day after day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #9)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:34 PM

10. It is not just limited to DU. Here I was providing support for others to use.

I created this post because of what I read on Facebook. And challenged the writers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #9)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:35 PM

11. They're playing dumb on purpose.

The only way that some of them can continue the narrative is if they pretend to be ignorant. Some of them are pretty obvious that it's intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #11)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:46 PM

12. I can see Weaver continuing the narrative since he stands to profit each and every day....

...that Sanders is a candidate, but rational people without personal gain on the line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #12)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:53 PM

13. Key word might be rational.

These are the same people who think the SDs are going to switch from the clear leader in the race to the runner-up just because he's such a nice guy and he's ahead in a few meaningless polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread