Reich: It's unlikely that HRC will be able to win enough pledged delegates for nomination.

[grasswire]

More:


Bernie Sanders said at a press conference this morning he’ll consider the Democratic Party's nominating convention "contested” unless Hillary Clinton gets enough pledged delegates to win the nomination – without relying on super delegates (Democratic insiders who will be voting at the convention for no reason other than they’re Democratic insiders.) And he’ll fight to win over those super delegates until they formally vote.

His argument is that he’s entitled to the same proportion of super delegates from a state as the votes he’s garnered in that state. "If I win a state with 70 percent of the votes,” he said, “I think I'm entitled to those super delegates. I think that the super delegates should reflect what the people in the state want.” Sanders called on super delegates from states like Washington and Minnesota specifically, where he beat Clinton by double-digit margins, to change their allegiances.

[yourpaljoey]

1. The Third Way is in trouble.

[redstateblues]

3. Maybe next time Bernie

[grasswire]

5. yep

running as fast as they can. nt

[tokenlib]

6. It's been over twenty years..they should have been tarred and feathered by now...

...it is long since time to evict the cockroaches that the Clintons let into the party.

[silvershadow]

19. I think that is what we are in the process of doing?

[tonyt53]

2. Sorry Bernie, but you knew the rules, but did he

Could he really have been that uninformed and/or naive? How about those supers be based upon number of votes? Sorry Bernie, you'd still be far behind.

[amborin]

4. exactly; it will be a contested convention; and HRC will not be the nominee

[dsc]

7. Assuming that she is entitled to the same thing then she still wins

She won all of the following states by as much as he won those two. MS, LA, VA, TX, FL, MD, GA, SC, TN and all of those were primaries in which there were vastly more people voting than in the two you mention. So go ahead, divy up the supers based on the proportions the vote each candidate received. She still wins.

[imari362]

10. He is not talking about just two states........

"...he’s entitled to the same proportion of super delegates from a state as the votes he’s garnered in that state."

The most important part.

[dsc]

13. again fine with me

give them each the proportion of the vote they got in each state, works for me. She still wins.

[RobertEarl]

8. I said this two weeks ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280179365

Here is how Bernie wins the nomination

H will not get a majority of pledged delegates.

So at the convention the super delegates will decide.

In the meantime we remind the super delegates of what democracy means. What democracy means is; the People.

<more at link>

Glad to see Reich catching up <grin>

[grasswire]

9. superdelegates need to be written out of party rules for the future.

What a crock of shit that is. Party insiders with the ability to trump the will of the electorate??

No thanks. Nothing democratic about that!

[RobertEarl]

14. Well

They could swing the nom to Bernie, so.....

This primary has been a year long affair. Votes have been stolen. DNC was corrupt. Media ignored Bernie for 9 months.

Supers can level the field. And score!! Bernie as nominee!

[Garrett78]

23. I'm fine with doing away with superdelegates.

Anyway, the title of this thread uses the phrase "enough pledged delegates." Since there are 4051 total, doesn't 2026 (a majority) constitute enough? Shouldn't the nominee be the person who wins 2026+?

[leeroysphitz]

38. Funny how Clinton supporters are suddenly all about convention and delegate rules...

They weren't so enthusiastic about 'em last go around, were they? Hypocrisy much?

[Garrett78]

25. Of course she'll "get a majority of pledged delegates."

There are only two candidates, so it's a guarantee that one of the two will get a majority of pledged delegates (i.e., 2026 or more).

[IamMab]

42. "What democracy means" You mean like 3 million more votes for Clinton? Hmm?

Yeah, what you think is "democracy" is not even in the same zip code. You're talking about invalidating the will of the majority of people, to placate a loud and spoiled minority of "new voters" whose parents didn't teach them what "No" means.

Not going to happen.

[jwirr]

11. And as a MN voter I agree. I think it was 60% - 40% here

and we were promised that it would stay that way until the convention. IF that is somehow changed before we get to the convention then ONCE AGAIN our state parties have betrayed us.

Democracy is disappearing rapidly.

[BootinUp]

12. Reich is being obtuse. SD's follow whoever takes majority of pledged del.

and he knows it.

[ucrdem]

18. #BernieMath

Reich knows better. I hope.

[leeroysphitz]

39. but they don't have to and YOU know that... n/t

[glinda]

15. I thought she was already President.

Just kidding.

[The Wielding Truth]

17. You made me snort. Presumptive President? So true yet so far from it.

[Tarc]

16. Hard to keep up with the Bernie-Superdelegate-Meme-of-the-Day, which one's up today?

1) "The existence of the superdelegates disenfranchises the will of the voter!"
2) "All of a state's superdelegates should be compelled to vote for the winner of that state's pledged delegates!"
3) "Superdelegates should be awarded proportionally, just as the state's pledged delegates are!"
4) "Bernie is the only one who can take on Trump/Cruz/Kasich; the superdelegates should vote for me regardless of anything else!"

[Scurrilous]

20. Dear Bernie...

This ain't Calvinball. No making the rules up as you go along.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. Moving the goalposts

near the end of the fourth quarter. And Senator BS STILL is losing by pledged delegates and every other possible metric.

[BernieforPres2016]

36. A pretend Progressive who refers to Bernie as Senator BS

Do you carry the progressive label to feel better about yourself as supporter of a corrupt neocon? It's understandable if you really are an economist. Calling economics the "dismal science" is giving it too much credit. It's closer to fortune telling than it is to science.

[leeroysphitz]

40. STATUSQUOECONOMIST more like it...

[Garrett78]

22. What does "enough pledged delegates" mean?

There are a total of 4051 pledged delegates, meaning a majority would be 2026. So, if Clinton tops 2026 (which she will with ease), is that not enough? Who determines what constitutes "enough?"

[IamMab]

44. The point is not to have a definitive answer. The point is to move the goalposts so that Clinton

will always be losing according to the latest metric.

"A majority of pledged delegates" Pledged delegates are just one type of delegates, along with super-delegates. There are ZERO rules in the DNC about a nominee having "a majority of pledged delegates." It's just a desperate attempt by Sanders supporters to create an artificial barrier.

The nominee is decided based on pledged AND super delegates. Clinton will have more than enough to win on the first ballot. There will be no "contested convention" and Sanders knows it.

[Jitter65]

24. Sorry, not entitled to protortional supers if it was an open Caucus state. nt

[Garrett78]

26. Not that proportional allocation would make any difference.

Nor would it make any difference if the winner of each state claimed every superdelegate from that state.

In either case, Clinton would reach 2383 and then some.

Nor would it make any difference if we did away with superdelegates and simply nominated the person who wins a majority of pledged delegates (2026 or more), which will be Clinton.

[Gomez163]

27. Not in a caucus state

[AzDar]

28. Even after all those shenanigans, she can't seal the deal...FDR's presidency was the result of a

contested convention -that turned out pretty well. So... Go, Bernie...GO!!

[Garrett78]

29. With only 2 candidates, 1 of them is guaranteed to win a majority of pledged delegates.

Therefore, there will not be a contested convention. Especially considering the final tally will be somewhere in the ballpark of 2175 to 1876.

[DrDan]

30. with FDR going into the convention with the lead in pd's

[Demsrule86]

33. It was a different system back then

You are not correct.


"The 1932 convention had built-in drama, for while Roosevelt came to the convention with a majority of the delegates despite losing several key primaries, Democratic Party rules at the time required a two-thirds vote to win the nomination".

http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2004/07/20/recalling_fdrs_pivotal_rise_at_the_1932_dnc/


The system was completely different back then... only 15 states had primaries...and some candidates did not even campaign...there is no such process these days;please note that Roosevelt had the most delegates; he had 700...there was a 2/3 rule; we do not have such a rule anymore nor any magic number that must be attained. This is why the 1932 convention was contested: the 2/3 rule. Today, the supers vote with the candidate who has the most delegates. By our current rules, FDR wins on the first ballot I suggest you read about it. Also, as another poster pointed out,there were multiple candidates:not the case here. Roosevelt did not even compete in all of the primaries as noted in the link I have copied. Finally, the last candidate that lost the popular vote by numbers as large as Bernie will lose was McGovern, and we all know how that turned out. Even though popular vote is not considered in the Democratic primary system;it is all about the delegates, popular is an indication of how strong a candidate is...especially in the General.

[beachbum bob]

31. obama didn't either....

[Demsrule86]

32. Talk is cheap

He can consider all he wants. He has not been a Democrat for long...and probably never went to a convention.

[pnwmom]

34. She will easily earn 2026, the majority of pledged delegates.

Added to those, she already has the vast majority of super delegates, whether they are officially hers before or during the convention.

If Bernie's going to count the 700+ total super delegates in determining how many delegates Hillary needs to get the majority, then he also has to include her more than 500 super delegates to determine when she reaches that majority.

He can make whatever argument he wants, but the rules were set up long before he came on the scene.

[BernieforPres2016]

35. If HRC has any brains at all, she will instruct her Superdelegates to go proportional to the vote

She will have the lead in pledged delegates so would will win anyway. But then she and the DNC can pretend that they wouldn't have thwarted the will of the voters had Bernie had more pledged delegates going into the convention, that it was always a phony issue and therefore the DNC can keep the superdelegate system in place for future presidential primary contests.

But my guess is that is more important to her to pad her margin with votes from the Democratic Politburo.

[kstewart33]

37. Unwise.

Bernie insisting that he is "entitled" to some super delegates won't go down well with the supers. That is not their function at the convention. They are charged with the responsibility of protecting the long-term health of the party. And I'd wager that a goodly number are tired of hearing Bernie telling them how to vote. And tired of threats by some of his supporters.

Rules are rules, and Bernie's in no position to change them.

[beachbum bob]

41. sanders and his supporters assurring Hillary will have full superdelegate support and

first round winning of the nomination.....intimidation and threats don't win friends or supporters

[leeroysphitz]

43. Which is why most independents dislike Clinton. n/t

[apnu]

45. Isn't this changing the rules of the game while the game is being played?

Sorry Robert, but you can't do that.

The superdelegate system sucks: it protects entrenched leaders of the party, it protects the establishment from grassroots. It was cooked up after the 1968 DNC debacle and riots and finally implemented in 1980. The Democratic Party has lived with it since then. It was part of the package when Bernie threw his hat in the ring. And nobody cared about it until now, thirty-six years later!

If Robert Reich wanted to change the superdelegate system he should have been talking about that over a year ago, not now in the 10th hour.

I like Bernie, I support Bernie, I've already voted for Bernie in my state's primary. But Bernie has made a critical error and he made it when he started. His whole campaign has been about bringing in new voters to the party, which is awesome, but along the way he failed to build bridges with small and mid-level party insiders. Those are the superdelegates and he needed to campaign for while also waging a popular campaign.

Maybe Bernie thought he didn't need the supers, and would win on pledged delegates alone. The rules certainly support that kind of math, but Bernie has failed to collect enough pledged delegates and now needs supers to close the gap. But even if superdelegates were distributed by popular vote, Bernie would still be losing and likely that Hillary will go to the convention with a substantial lead, and will win on the first ballot at the convention.

We can't change the rules while we're playing the game. It hurts that my pick is losing, but I'm not going to whine about the rules at his late hour.