Tue May 24, 2016, 10:54 PM

amborin (16,631 posts)

Steve Kornacki Explains Why HRC Won't Get Enough Pledged Delegates to Get Nom Even After California

https://www.facebook.com/susan.sanders.35325/videos/636912853123585/

(apparently they took this video down and expunged it! not what msnbc wants anyone to know)

134 replies, 9720 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

134 replies	Author	Time	Post
Steve Kornacki Explains Why HRC Won't Get Enough Pledged Delegates to Get Nom Even After California (Original post)	amborin	May 2016	OP
so we can make it seen	grasswire	May 2016	#1
yes, please make it go viral; this is not what the M$M, and especially MSNBC, wants anyone to see	amborin	May 2016	#4
Uh, the video is from MSNBC.	Garrett78	May 2016	#57
yes, but they removed if from their website	amborin	Jun 2016	#120
People here, including myself, watched the video after you made that claim.	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#122
RIP Sanders	wallyworld2	May 2016	#53
you do know that "Wallyworld" is a FOX personality? nt	grasswire	May 2016	#67
No I did not know that	wallyworld2	May 2016	#70
K&R nt	silvershadow	May 2016	#2
Thanks for this, amborin! I clicked on it and it played. This MSNBC vid is AMAZING!	Peace Patriot	May 2016	#3
yes, Peace Patriot, MSNBC took it down, amazing that Kornacki was permitted to run through the math	amborin	May 2016	#5
"War Admiral" - how ironic. CNN panel tonight couldn't wait to conflate Trump protesters with Bernie	snowy owl	May 2016	#6
Yes, I just watched it and it looks like a brokered convention will happen	Samantha	May 2016	#10
He also said Clinton and Sanders are close in CA and that will not put her over the top (eom)	Samantha	May 2016	#11
It will be over after California	hack89	May 2016	#58
According to Kornachi, after the estimated pledged delegates are awarded, she needs to win 95%	Samantha	May 2016	#95
She does not need a certain number of pledged delegates to win...	Demsrule86	May 2016	#109
I understand that a simple majority can work but I also understand the supers do not count until	Samantha	May 2016	#112
I don't think you understand how the process works	HarmonyRockets	Jun 2016	#126
Ditto what Samantha says, and, additionally, Obama was not under FBI Investigation	amborin	May 2016	#118
It has to go to a second vote to be a brokered convention	hack89	May 2016	#54
Exactly. There are only 2 candidates. 1 of them will reach 2383.	Garrett78	May 2016	#56
I rec this post.	malokvale77	May 2016	#27
thank you on both counts!!!!!!!	amborin	Jun 2016	#124
What a great commentary!	bjo59	May 2016	#38
Remember Secretariat?	okasha	May 2016	#94
I just took a look at the film of the actual race between	SheilaT	May 2016	#106
It's exactly as Bernie said. Yet "some" here insist Hill has already won, BUT SHE HASN'T.	senz	May 2016	#7
I sent it to a facebook friend who has a huge following.	grasswire	May 2016	#8
Try to imagine Hillary being President and her running her administration the way she has run	Samantha	May 2016	#13
So what. She is going to win on the first ballot. So much ado about what?	Jitter65	May 2016	#15
So why the panic?	nadinbrzezinski	May 2016	#17
Have you noticed...	malokvale77	May 2016	#29
Finnessing finally a time line	nadinbrzezinski	May 2016	#30
I've been enjoying your local reports.	malokvale77	May 2016	#33
Thanks	nadinbrzezinski	May 2016	#34
Oh dear...	malokvale77	May 2016	#35
Tom and I intend to	nadinbrzezinski	May 2016	#36
That press conference was extremely interesting!	bjo59	May 2016	#39
Big Ol' K & R!	AzDar	May 2016	#9
Kick -- b/c the Hill folk need to see this!	senz	May 2016	#12
K&R nt	Live and Learn	May 2016	#14
I haven't seen many people expect her to hit the 2383 on pledged delegates alone.	barrow-wight	May 2016	#16
We shall see if your vote suppression efforts work out.	Peace Patriot	May 2016	#18
My vote suppression efforts?	barrow-wight	May 2016	#19
they're like little ads	NJCher	Jun 2016	#128
I wish they would.	barrow-wight	Jun 2016	#130
We have always known this	fun n serious	May 2016	#20
I'm posting this info right now in GD: Primaries, amborin.	Peace Patriot	May 2016	#21
Kornaki was repeating what Sanders said..	asuhornets	May 2016	#22
and that means exactly...what?	NorthCarolina	May 2016	#23
Amazing. Did this get X-POSTED to the Group, I hope.	appalachiablue	May 2016	#24
please do	amborin	Jun 2016	#134
Go Bernie!	Joob	May 2016	#25
No, look again, Kornacki is only talking about pledged delegates.	procon	May 2016	#26
Kick! nt	LiberalElite	May 2016	#28
The threshold is 2384 total delegates, not 2384 pledged delegates alone.	Lord Magus	May 2016	#31
Common sense and objectivity doesn't go over well with some 'round these parts.	randome	May 2016	#73
What it means is 1884 pledged delegates for Hillary, vs 2344 pledged delegates for Bernie	quaker bill	May 2016	#83
K & R nt	findrskeep	May 2016	#32
k/r thanks	840high	May 2016	#37
There must be an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.	Garrett78	May 2016	#40
Clinton will win the nomination June 7 in California.	baldguy	May 2016	#41
Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention,	B Calm	May 2016	#42
Both pledged and superdelegates count equally toward the total needed.	procon	May 2016	#43
You are not making any sense what-so-ever! Supers don't even vote until the convention.	B Calm	May 2016	#44
And?	procon	May 2016	#45
You are wrong, I watched it and reported what he said here	Samantha	May 2016	#76
He's only talking about pledged delegates because that's what Sanders is trying to push.	procon	May 2016	#77
You are the one living in la-la land if you think you can count those SD votes before they are cast	Samantha	May 2016	#78
That's not even at issue, so why are you only looking at the pledged count,	procon	May 2016	#79
Take a look at the thread title and that will answer your question	Samantha	May 2016	#80
Um... that was your assertion, I simply questioned your erroneous conclusions. nt	procon	May 2016	#81
They're not pretending.	okasha	May 2016	#97
No delegates	GulfCoast66	May 2016	#48
Everyone "pretends" the winner on election day has won the election	onenote	May 2016	#52
you do know they vote on the first ballot	WhiteTara	May 2016	#102
Supers commit	Demsrule86	May 2016	#110
There is no "required" number of pledged delegates	onenote	May 2016	#51
Supers should not be	bkkyosemite	May 2016	#111
I don't disagree.	onenote	May 2016	#113
this is the truth, anything else is the big lie that camp HRC wants the public to swallow	amborin	May 2016	#92
All Hillary has to hit is 2,026, which is a guarantee that the supers will then vote for her	Tarc	May 2016	#46
Pretty much, and she'll far surpass 2026.	Garrett78	May 2016	#47
Strawman: I don't know of anyone who has claimed that Clinton will have 2383 pledged delegates	onenote	May 2016	#49
Agreed.	Garrett78	May 2016	#50
Clinton needs 78 delegates to clinch the nomination.	Agnosticsherbet	May 2016	#55
1769 Pledged delegates and 540 Superdelegates = 2309 delegates	Algernon Moncrieff	May 2016	#68
My bad. Thanks. I believe in math.	Agnosticsherbet	May 2016	#69
Don't be silly - you might have seen a site with different figures	Algernon Moncrieff	May 2016	#71
73. And the elected-super distinction is utterly irrelevant in this race.	ucrdem	May 2016	#85
A delegate is a delegate. There is no distinction between the too, I know.	Agnosticsherbet	May 2016	#87
There is a distinction, though.	Garrett78	May 2016	#88
Sanders will not win the majority of pledged delegates.	Agnosticsherbet	May 2016	#90
Of course not. I've been saying that for months.	Garrett78	May 2016	#91
Yawn	leftynyc	May 2016	#59
This video is extremely misleading.	TeacherB87	May 2016	#60
Amborin says the MSM, especially MSNBC, doesn't want anyone to see that MSNBC video.	Garrett78	May 2016	#61
It's really disheartening.	TeacherB87	May 2016	#63
Remember that DU is not representative of the population at large.	Garrett78	May 2016	#64
I know, but	TeacherB87	May 2016	#65
That's interesting. I wasn't around back then. My theory:	Garrett78	May 2016	#66
Also, progressives	TeacherB87	May 2016	#75
That's certainly a factor, as well.	Garrett78	May 2016	#82
I just listened to it	Time for change	May 2016	#62
How convenient	Demsrule86	May 2016	#72
HERE'S WHAT STEVE SAID.	senz	May 2016	#74
Nobody disputes the idea that Clinton won't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.	Garrett78	May 2016	#89
Exactly. And MSNBC took down the video because they knew it was misleading.	eastwestdem	May 2016	#93
Really	Demsrule86	May 2016	#84
Hillary needs 73 more delegates to clinch. Bernie needs 841.	ucrdem	May 2016	#86
She needs 612 more pledged delegates (Kornacki's number) to make it to the magic number	Samantha	May 2016	#96
And Bernie would need nearly 1000.	okasha	May 2016	#98
He is 271 pledged delegates behind her right now	Samantha	May 2016	#99
So he would need that many plus ~600 more to get 2383 in pledged delegates alone.	okasha	May 2016	#100
Bernie was a Democratic Socialist for years and caucused with the Democratic Party	Samantha	May 2016	#103
It is perfectly possible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time.	okasha	May 2016	#105
No, he remains an honest broker and his campaign is doing well	Samantha	May 2016	#115
From what he said recently, he is shooting for a simple majority of pledged delegates over Hillary	Samantha	May 2016	#104
To get a majority of pledged delegates, he'll need about 75% of the California vote...	brooklynite	May 2016	#116
This is irrelevant as it was in 2008	underthematrix	May 2016	#101
I saw it and the way Kornacki explains it, Bernie's got a real shot at the convention.	ancianita	May 2016	#107
You really don't understand the process	Demsrule86	May 2016	#108
K & R	lmbradford	May 2016	#114
kornacki is an idiot....the nomination is based on pledge and supers...and hillary will have the	beachbum bob	May 2016	#117
Kickin' For The Dense And The Diehards...	AzDar	May 2016	#119
Kicking for the obtuse...	AzDar	Jun 2016	#121
Show me a post where someone claimed Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#123
If Hillary gets just 50% of the remaining pleaded delegates she will go into the convention needing	Jitter65	Jun 2016	#125
She'd need about 115. Regardless, she'll get there quickly.	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#127
It doesn't matter. Superdelegates DO count - regardless of Bernie insisting they don't.	Lil Missy	Jun 2016	#129
#BernieScience.	ucrdem	Jun 2016	#131
And how ironic that he wants to steal unpledged delegates that voted for Hillary in order to win.	Lil Missy	Jun 2016	#132
lol...again with the alternative reality....the nomiation is based on super delegates too	beachbum bob	Jun 2016	#133

Response to amborin (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2016, 11:22 PM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

1. so we can make it seen

get it out to facebook, twitter, etc.

Headline: MSNBC's Kornacki agrees with Sanders: Clinton will NOT go to convention with a lock on delegates.

Reply to this post

Response to grasswire (Reply #1)

Tue May 24, 2016, 11:56 PM

amborin (16,631 posts)

4. yes, please make it go viral; this is not what the M$M, and especially MSNBC, wants anyone to see

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Reply #4)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:58 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

57. Uh, the video is from MSNBC.

I'm reminded of the thread on the night of the Indiana primary, which claimed there's no media coverage of Bernie's victory. Even though every major news source had a headline about his victory. Peeps need to get a grip on reality.

And nobody is arguing that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. DU is littered with straw men.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:28 PM

amborin (16,631 posts)

120. yes, but they removed if from their website

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Reply #120)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:15 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

122. People here, including myself, watched the video after you made that claim.

If it was down momentarily, it was a temporary glitch. This was nothing more than a straw man argument anyway. The point of the video was that Clinton isn't likely to reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. But nobody was disputing that point.

Reply to this post

Response to grasswire (Reply #1)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:50 PM

wallyworld2 (375 posts)

53. RIP Sanders

Reply to this post

Response to wallyworld2 (Reply #53)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:52 PM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

67. you do know that "Wallyworld" is a FOX personality? nt

Reply to this post

Response to grasswire (Reply #67)

Thu May 26, 2016, 05:27 PM

wallyworld2 (375 posts)

70. No I did not know that

Just my freaking luck

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2016, 11:27 PM

silvershadow (10,336 posts)

2. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2016, 11:50 PM

Peace Patriot (24,010 posts)

3. Thanks for this, amborin! I clicked on it and it played. This MSNBC vid is AMAZING!

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)

What do you mean, they took it down? It's still on Facebook. Do you mean they took it down at MSNBC?

This is IT, isn't it? Steve Kornacki establishes without any question that Clinton CANNOT achieve the 612 more pledged delegates she needs to clinch the nomination, unless she takes about 80% of the remaining states, including 90% to 95% of California. And that is NOT going to happen!

This is the reason for all the hysteria in the Clinton camp, trying to strongarm Sanders out of the race--or to significantly suppress his vote with discouraging LIES. They are just frigging LYING!

Kornacki is very generous in his theoretical numbers that Clinton might get--assumes, for instance, that she gets 50% in likely Bernie states other than California. All his other assumptions are similarly generous, yet she ends up with only 472 of the remaining pledged delegates --not enough!

Sanders is NOT going to withdraw. And Sanders voters are NOT going to be discouraged enough by these lies to make that big a difference. Sanders voters are voting for their lives, at this point. It's Seabiscuit vs War Admiral, and even those who feel hopeless, as Seabiscuit slows down to take his opponent's measure, won't throw their betting tickets away! They'll vote, because these voters are voting ON THE ISSUES. They want to make a point to our benighted Establishment, even if they think we can't win. And the delightful--nay, wondrous--thing is that we CAN win!

Seabiscuit, that funny little horse that the Establishment scorned and ignored, had the heart of a mighty warrior. And, not only that, his astonishing win gave hope and solace to a discouraged and hungry American people in the depths of the Great Depression.

Sanders = Seabiscuit. That's what it looks like to me. And, by God, War Admiral, that over-rated horse, fawned upon by the racing powers, couldn't beat him!

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 12:00 AM

amborin (16,631 posts)

5. yes, Peace Patriot, MSNBC took it down, amazing that Kornacki was permitted to run through the math

Exactly, this is what the hysteria, smears, nastiness, and massive attempts to suppress the vote is all about. The War candidate by no means has a lock on the nomination; it's totally open-ended and will be, even after California!

Love your Seabiscuit analogy!!!

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 12:03 AM

snowy owl (2,145 posts)

6. "War Admiral" - how ironic. CNN panel tonight couldn't wait to conflate Trump protesters with Bernie

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:23 AM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

10. Yes, I just watched it and it looks like a brokered convention will happen

Just to reiterate, Hillary would need to capture 612 delegates of the remaining 781 available, not counting superdelegates. That is not going to happen.

So the next time you hear someone say NJ will probably put her over the top and MSNBC will call it before California voting totals are in, LOL and walk away.

The wholesale lying that has been going on in this one area by so many, including the MSM, is staggering.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #10)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:25 AM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

11. He also said Clinton and Sanders are close in CA and that will not put her over the top (eom)

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #11)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:00 PM

hack89 (38,606 posts)

58. It will be over after California

she will have a commanding majority of pledged delegates that Bernie cannot mathematically overcome. The supers will then declare for the candidate with the most pledged delegates like they always have.

Reply to this post

Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:32 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

95. According to Kornachi, after the estimated pledged delegates are awarded, she needs to win 95%

of California to make it to her goal. Good luck with that.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #95)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:57 PM

Demsrule86 (52,344 posts)

109. She does not need a certain number of pledged delegates to win...

only a majority...Obama did not have a certain number...the supers put him over...I almost feel sorry for you guys. Your hope is not real...you do not understand the process.

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #109)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:14 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

112. I understand that a simple majority can work but I also understand the supers do not count until

the convention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512078890

Bye.

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #112)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:34 AM

HarmonyRockets (397 posts)

126. I don't think you understand how the process works

when you say something like "the supers don't count until the convention." What does this mean? None of the delegates vote until the convention. So the pledged delegates "don't count until the convention" either. The nominee is always officially nominated at the convention. And the system was basically set up so that a candidate won't win with pledged delegates alone. At the end of the primaries in 2008 Obama had a majority of pledged delegates as well, but didn't have enough pledged delegates alone to win the nomination. After he won enough total delegates he was announced by the media as the "presumptive nominee." Yes, none of the delegates "count until the convention." This is why the word "presumptive" is used. Hillary Clinton will be the presumptive nominee on June 7th. If you don't believe me, there is an MSNBC segment that explains why she will be the presumptive nominee quite well. And guess who it is that explains it? Steve Kornachi.

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #109)

Mon May 30, 2016, 10:11 PM

amborin (16,631 posts)

118. Ditto what Samantha says, and, additionally, Obama was not under FBI Investigation

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #10)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:52 PM

hack89 (38,606 posts)

54. It has to go to a second vote to be a brokered convention

Hillary will win on the first vote - the pledged delegates cannot switch who they can vote for and the supers will vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

Reply to this post

Response to hack89 (Reply #54)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:54 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

56. Exactly. There are only 2 candidates. 1 of them will reach 2383.

The only way that wouldn't happen is if hundreds of superdelegates abstained from voting.

A lot of folks seem to be confused about the difference between "contested" and "brokered."

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:55 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

27. I rec this post.

War Admiral is so appropriate for you know who.

I just sent money to Bernie and his latest 8. I did it in response to an OP on DU praising Alan Dershowitz (Lolita Express frequent flyer) for bashing Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:14 AM

amborin (16,631 posts)

124. thank you on both counts!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:56 AM

bjo59 (1,166 posts)

38. What a great commentary!

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:27 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

94. Remember Secretariat?

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #3)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:28 PM

SheilaT (23,156 posts)

106. I just took a look at the film of the actual race between

Seabiscuit and War Admiral, and it's pretty fascinating. Throughout most of the race they were pretty much neck and neck, although somewhere in the back stretch it looks like Seabiscuit pulls a head, and he never lets go of the advantage. In the end he won by 4 lengths.

Somehow it feels a lot like this primary season.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 12:21 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

7. It's exactly as Bernie said. Yet "some" here insist Hill has already won, BUT SHE HASN'T.

What a loathsome thing to say. They simply want to discourage Bernie voters so they'll stay home. Again, what a loathsome tactic.

Now is the time for Bernie voters to put on the heat and win as many final contests as we can!

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #7)

Wed May 25, 2016, 12:45 AM

grasswire (50,130 posts)

8. I sent it to a facebook friend who has a huge following.

Hmm...Will Pitt ought to put it on his feed.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #7)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:30 AM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

13. Try to imagine Hillary being President and her running her administration the way she has run

this campaign. How would one ever know which side is up and which is down. It is just like the eight years of Clintons we had in the 90s. Everyday, a fresh new soap opera. I was a Republican during those years, and I became so disgusted I left and became a Democrat. Once I did this, I immediately knew it should have been my decision from the start.

I don't think I can make it another eight years of this insanity. I am just into the issues, solving the problems and leaving the crazy at the curb.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #7)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:35 AM

Jitter65 (3,089 posts)

15. So what. She is going to win on the first ballot. So much ado about what?

If you stick to the notion that the supers should vote with their state...then Wash. primary would mean more than it does because it shows that the majority of the people voted for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Response to Jitter65 (Reply #15)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:39 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

17. So why the panic?

Amirite?

Reply to this post

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:10 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

29. Have you noticed...

how they pretend the OIG report doesn't say what it says.

I watched the State Department presser on C-SPAN earlier. Not one reporter cared about anything but the leaked report. The State was not prepared with it's spin yet. It was sad and amusing all at the same time.

PS: I hope the workers win

. Thank goodness Bernie insists on counting every vote.

Reply to this post

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #29)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:17 PM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

30. Finnessing finally a time line

time to finally consider doing a local story.

Reply to this post

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #30)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:28 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

33. I've been enjoying your local reports.

Wish we had similar in Dallas.

Watch your Post Box.

Reply to this post

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #33)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:30 PM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

34. Thanks

Friday we will be on the front lines of a riot... Trump coming to town.

Reply to this post

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #34)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:53 PM

malokvale77 (4,879 posts)

35. Oh dear...

Stay safe.

Reply to this post

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #35)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:55 PM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

36. Tom and I intend to

we are carrying all the party flavors for a riot that is.

Reply to this post

Response to malokvale77 (Reply #29)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:57 AM

bjo59 (1,166 posts)

39. That press conference was extremely interesting!

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 12:53 AM

AzDar (14,023 posts)

9. Big Ol' K & R!

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:28 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

12. Kick -- b/c the Hill folk need to see this!

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:32 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

14. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 01:35 AM

barrow-wight (744 posts)

16. I haven't seen many people expect her to hit the 2383 on pledged delegates alone.

However, since Bernie has to get roughly 67% of the remaining pledged delegates just to tie with her, it's going to be up to the superdelegates either way. I could see the supers maybe switching to her if Bernie came to the convention with a significantly higher number of pledged delegates but since he'd have to get 67% just to tie with her, that's very, very unlikely given trends so far. And, given the horrific way that the Superdelegates have been treated by Bernie supporters on a daily basis, and the war Bernie's declared on the Democratic Party as a whole, I don't really see that delegates specifically chosen to vote for the good of the party are going to switch to him. She will be the nominee.

Reply to this post

Response to barrow-wight (Reply #16)

Wed May 25, 2016, 02:14 AM

Peace Patriot (24,010 posts)

18. We shall see if your vote suppression efforts work out.

I'm betting that they won't.

Reply to this post

Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #18)

Wed May 25, 2016, 03:01 AM

barrow-wight (744 posts)

19. My vote suppression efforts?

Do you really think me posting on a message board is going to make or break the vote? You ascribe to me too much power. LOL

Reply to this post

Response to barrow-wight (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:52 AM

NJCher (25,553 posts)

128. they're like little ads

all

over the place.

fortunately people are well aware of it and pay no attention.

some of the more seasoned posters automatically put this stuff on ignore.

cher

Reply to this post

Response to NJCher (Reply #128)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:16 AM

barrow-wight (744 posts)

130. I wish they would.

Then I wouldn't have to feel like I have to respond to their replies.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 03:12 AM

fun n serious (4,451 posts)

20. We have always known this

It was the same in 08 except Clinton and Obama were only had 60 delegate difference.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:21 PM

Peace Patriot (24,010 posts)

21. I'm posting this info right now in GD: Primaries, amborin.

It's much too important to be buried in the load of crapola we've been seeing from Clinton supporters in the last couple of days.

My post is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512053905

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:29 PM

asuhornets (2,405 posts)

22. Kornaki was repeating what Sanders said..

Reply to this post

Response to asuhornets (Reply #22)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:40 PM

NorthCarolina (11,197 posts)

23. and that means exactly...what?

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:11 PM

appalachiablue (30,246 posts)

24. Amazing. Did this get X-POSTED to the Group, I hope.

Reply to this post

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:41 AM

amborin (16,631 posts)

134. please do

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:18 PM

Joob (1,065 posts)

25. Go Bernie!

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:47 PM

procon (15,805 posts)

26. No, look again, Kornacki is only talking about pledged delegates.

Did anyone actually watch the video with the audio on?

He's trying to show Sander's nutty math by not counting all the delegates and omitting the supers. Look at the sets or numbers on the board and listen better to what he says.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the only thing Kornacki established was that it is mathematically impossible to win because both sets of delegates will be counted, not just the pledged ones.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 09:55 PM

LiberalElite (14,691 posts)

28. Kick! nt

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:23 PM

Lord Magus (1,999 posts)

31. The threshold is 2384 total delegates, not 2384 pledged delegates alone.

Also Kornacki's math is way off. He ignores the fact that Democratic primaries have a viability threshold of 15%. For example, he says that getting 15 out of 20 delegates from DC would be a "good day" for Clinton, when that would actually be majorly under-performing. That primary looks more like a total wipeout for Sanders, where Clinton would get all 20 delegates. He groups in New Mexico with Montana and the Dakotas as "look like Bernie Sanders states", which is patently absurd. Clinton is almost certainly going to not just win but win big in New Mexico.

It's unlikely that Clinton will get 2384 in pledged delegates alone, but it's not as unlikely as Kornacki claims. And she'll almost certainly have in excess of 2800 total delegates.

Reply to this post

Response to Lord Magus (Reply #31)

Thu May 26, 2016, 06:06 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

73. Common sense and objectivity doesn't go over well with some 'round these parts.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Response to Lord Magus (Reply #31)

Sat May 28, 2016, 05:04 AM

quaker bill (8,128 posts)

83. What it means is 1884 pledged delegates for Hillary, vs 2344 pledged delegates for Bernie

to get to the same place, as she started with a roughly 450 SD lead before any votes were cast.

It has been called "putting your thumb on the scale".

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:28 PM

findrskeep (713 posts)

32. K & R nt

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:09 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

37. k/r thanks

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:30 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

40. There must be an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

I don't see any evidence for that, but why else would there be so many threads/posts about how Clinton won't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone?

I thought it was widely accepted that Clinton is highly unlikely to reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Perhaps someone can show me evidence that many on DU have claimed otherwise.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 06:43 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

41. Clinton will win the nomination June 7 in California.

While it's true that she can't get enough pledged delegates, then it's also true that Sanders can't either. The simple fact is that Sanders can't win even if he gets ALL of the remaining pledged delegates. He needs the Superdelegates, just as Clinton does. SDs were always intended to be part of the overall delegate count, and that's where Sanders falls way, way, way short.

What you seem to want - and the only way his supporters can pretend that he's still viable - is to count all of Sanders' delegates, all of Sanders' SDs and half of the SDs supporting Clinton that would have to magically switch sides, all the while totally discounting & ignoring Clinton's overwhelming lead in SDs. The Sanders campaign is flying in the face of reality.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 06:49 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

42. Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention,

Here are the numbers:

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #42)

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:02 AM

procon (15,805 posts)

43. Both pledged and superdelegates count equally toward the total needed.

Whats the point in pretending that you can just count the pledge vote category and ignore the other one?

Reply to this post

Response to procon (Reply #43)

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:10 AM

B Calm (28,762 posts)

44. You are not making any sense what-so-ever! Supers don't even vote until the convention.

What's the point of arguing with someone like you who is pretending that Hillary has this won? Never mind, I know the answer.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #44)

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:51 AM

procon (15,805 posts)

45. And?

Why are you only counting pledged delegates and deluding yourself that it means Sanders won? Kornacki made a mockery out of that falsehood in his video, showing Sanders nutty math and how he's trying to "prove" he's winning. The man's lying to you. Send money.

Reply to this post

Response to procon (Reply #45)

Thu May 26, 2016, 08:51 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

76. You are wrong, I watched it and reported what he said here

He opened up with Sanders' statement about having a narrow path to the nomination and his belief he could possibly win. Kornacki's presentation analyzed that and agreed with Sanders' statement. He also commented that New Jersey would not put Clinton over the top, she needs 612 pledged delegates, and there are 781 available from the remaining states, including California. She would have to win 95 percent of the remaining available delegates and that is not going to happen. She will go to the convention without having closed the nomination with pledged delegates alone. If all her super-delegates stick with her, she will be put over the top with their votes.

This is exactly why she and the Brock brigade keep insisting Bernie should drop out. Hillary wants to lock up the nomination before the convention, which she could do if Bernie did indeed drop out. But he is going to convention. And the repeated statement that Sanders saying the race is hurting Hillary is laughable on its face. The only thing hurting Hillary is Hillary.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #76)

Thu May 26, 2016, 09:08 PM

procon (15,805 posts)

77. He's only talking about pledged delegates because that's what Sanders is trying to push.

Look at all the numbers. You're leaving in la-la land if you think you can just skip past the SD, so don't pretend to be that dense, you know both categories will count toward selecting the nominee.

Reply to this post

Response to procon (Reply #77)

Thu May 26, 2016, 09:16 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

78. You are the one living in la-la land if you think you can count those SD votes before they are cast

and that happens at the convention.

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #78)

Thu May 26, 2016, 09:38 PM

procon (15,805 posts)

79. That's not even at issue, so why are you only looking at the pledged count,

as if all the SDs already committed to Hillary don't exist?

Reply to this post

Response to procon (Reply #79)

Thu May 26, 2016, 09:48 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

80. Take a look at the thread title and that will answer your question

and you know the answer to the second statement.

Bye now. I am done.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #80)

Thu May 26, 2016, 09:54 PM

procon (15,805 posts)

81. Um... that was your assertion, I simply questioned your erroneous conclusions. nt

Reply to this post

Response to procon (Reply #77)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:36 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

97. They're not pretending.

Alas.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #44)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:36 PM

GulfCoast66 (10,674 posts)

48. No delegates

Pledged or super vote till the convention. But on the first vote they will both vote to make Hillary the nominee.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #44)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:41 PM

onenote (35,680 posts)

52. Everyone "pretends" the winner on election day has won the election

when in fact no one wins the presidential election until the electoral college members have cast their votes and those votes have been voted -- which occurs well after election day.

But as I pointed out, no one ever suggests that the candidate who won the popular vote in states with a majority of the electoral votes hasn't won the election yet. Even though, in theory, the electors in most states can ignore the popular vote in their states and cast their electoral college vote for anyone they choose. (And even in those states that prohibit an electoral college member from ignoring the popular vote in their state, only two invalidate the rogue elector's votes -- the others can punish the rogue elector after the fact but their rogue vote stands).

Unlikely that such a thing would happen? Of course.

But its also unlikely that if Clinton has a majority of the pledged delegates and enough superdelegate commitments to get to 2383 those superdelegates whose commitments put her over the top are going to defect and vote for Sanders. It hasn't happened in the past and it would be shocking if it happened now if Clinton is still in the race.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #44)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:09 PM

WhiteTara (27,025 posts)

102. you do know they vote on the first ballot

don't you? You really think that they will all switch to the one that has done nothing but castigate and heap scorn on their existence? Not going to happen. Hillary will be the nominee and Bernie will go back to the Senate on June 8th, just like Jane said.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #44)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:59 PM

Demsrule86 (52,344 posts)

110. Supers commit

Do you remember in 08 60 delegates moved to Obama? They committed. The same will happen here.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #42)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:35 PM

onenote (35,680 posts)

51. There is no "required" number of pledged delegates

The only "required" number is 2383 delegates out of the combined total of 4765 pledged and superdelegates.

In theory, a candidate could get as few as 1669 (41 percent) of the pledged delegates and still win the nomination if every one of the superdelegates voted for that candidate. Indeed, this is essentially what Sanders is hoping for -- that even if he doesn't get a majority of the pledged delegates, enough superdelegates support him to get to 2383. That's a pretty sizable hurdle given the number of supers that have already committed to Clinton and the historical truth that supers don't generally change horses after they've committed.

As has been pointed out here more times than anyone could possibly count, the historical practice is that if a candidate gets to a majority of the pledged delegates and they have commitments from enough superdelegates to put them over the 1/2 of the combined total threshold, they're the winner. The vote at the convention is simply a formality to ratify what everyone knows will happen.

Reply to this post

Response to onenote (Reply #51)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:02 PM

bkkyosemite (5,792 posts)

111. Supers should not be

Reply to this post

Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #111)

Sun May 29, 2016, 10:30 PM

onenote (35,680 posts)

113. I don't disagree.

But if you cancel them out now, the result doesn't change.

Supers make particularly little sense in a two person race where one candidate is guaranteed to have a majority of the pledged delegates.

Reply to this post

Response to B Calm (Reply #42)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:16 PM

amborin (16,631 posts)

92. this is the truth, anything else is the big lie that camp HRC wants the public to swallow

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:56 AM

Tarc (9,866 posts)

46. All Hillary has to hit is 2,026, which is a guarantee that the supers will then vote for her

at the convention, as they have at every other convention.

I swear that on the morning of January 20th, when Hillary is being inaugurated, there will be be Berniefans screeching that Justice Roberts, if he really really really wanted to, could summon Sanders onto the stage and swear him in instead.

Reply to this post

Response to Tarc (Reply #46)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:04 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

47. Pretty much, and she'll far surpass 2026.

I don't see anyone claiming that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, yet straw man thread after straw man thread suggests there's an epidemic of people doing just that.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:26 PM

onenote (35,680 posts)

49. Strawman: I don't know of anyone who has claimed that Clinton will have 2383 pledged delegates

So it's basically a strawman argument.

Getting pledged delegates in an amount greater than one half the combined number of pledged delegates and superdelegates isn't required. Obama didn't get pledged delegates in an amount greater than one-half the combined number of pledged and supers before Clinton conceded that, on the basis of his pledged delegates plus the supers that had publicly endorsed him, he had secured the nomination and that all that was left was the formality of the vote at the convention.

I'm not even certain Kerry had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without superdelegates when his competitors dropped out.

But if folks want to put their heads in the sand and pretend that Clinton hasn't for all practical purposes secured the nomination the moment she hits a majority of pledged delegates plus enough superdelegate commitments to get 2383 votes at the convention, I suppose there isn't any way to stop them.

Just don't act surprised when it turns out that way.

Reply to this post

Response to onenote (Reply #49)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:34 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

50. Agreed.

See posts #40 and #47. And posts of mine throughout this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2053905

You would think there's an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, yet nobody can point to a single shred of evidence to support that.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:53 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

55. Clinton needs 78 delegates to clinch the nomination.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #55)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:54 PM

Algernon Moncrieff (5,368 posts)

68. 1769 Pledged delegates and 540 Superdelegates = 2309 delegates

2382 are needed to win.

Actually, she only needs 73.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Reply to this post

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #68)

Thu May 26, 2016, 05:25 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

69. My bad. Thanks. I believe in math.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #69)

Thu May 26, 2016, 05:51 PM

Algernon Moncrieff (5,368 posts)

71. Don't be silly - you might have seen a site with different figures

Bottom line: Hillary Clinton will win.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #55)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:47 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

85. 73. And the elected-super distinction is utterly irrelevant in this race.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

Reply to this post

Response to ucrdem (Reply #85)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:26 AM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

87. A delegate is a delegate. There is no distinction between the too, I know.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #87)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:31 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

88. There is a distinction, though.

Neither are technically bound (both pledged delegates and superdelegates can switch), though it's rare for pledged delegates to switch (a candidate can dismiss a pledged delegate if he/she finds out that he/she plans on switching). And superdelegates have been known to switch allegiance in accordance with who ended up with more pledged delegates (this just happened 8 years ago, as I'm sure everyone recalls).

Pledged delegates are won via primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are basically party insider endorsements and aren't earned via voting. To say there's no distinction is rather silly.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #88)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:35 AM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

90. Sanders will not win the majority of pledged delegates.

And superdelegates are not going to switch to someone who Democrats did not nominate.

Clinton will be nominated on the first vote.

Reply to this post

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #90)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:41 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

91. Of course not. I've been saying that for months.

I agree 100%.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a pretty clear distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:00 PM

leftynyc (26,060 posts)

59. Yawn

She will still have the most pledged delegates so she will win. I'm beginning to feel sorry for those who cannot accept that reality.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:29 PM

TeacherB87 (249 posts)

60. This video is extremely misleading.

No one will go to the convention with a majority of ALL delegates because, in a somewhat close ttwo person race, the super delegates hold the balance of power. As with any convention, the supers will side with the candidate who has the most delegates. That candidate will be Hillry Clinton. Pretending that the super delegates exist for purposes of making pro-Bernie math and then turning around and forgetting what super delegates always do at the Dem convention is inconsistent at best. Review what happened at the 2008 convention to understand what I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #60)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:51 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

61. Amborin says the MSM, especially MSNBC, doesn't want anyone to see that MSNBC video.

On the night of the Indiana primary, posters claimed there was no media coverage of Bernie's win, even though there were headlines everywhere.

Thread after thread suggests many are claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, even though nobody can point to a single post in which that claim is made.

And then there's the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).

And then there's false claims about who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

And then there's the false claims about which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).

And then there's the conspiracies surrounding exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).

And then there are all of the posts suggesting low primary turnout translates to low general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).

And then there are the suggestions that losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general, which is so obviously untrue.

And then there are the posts implying Clinton can't win open primaries, even though she's won more open primaries than Sanders has.

And then there's just the overall failure to grasp demographic and mathematical realities.

Far too many on DU are living in a fantasy world where preconceived notions and desires trump reality.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #61)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:21 PM

TeacherB87 (249 posts)

63. It's really disheartening.

I've never seen self-described progressives behave this poorly. At least it's good to know there are a few rational people still out there.

Reply to this post

Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #63)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:26 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

64. Remember that DU is not representative of the population at large.

While many on DU and other message boards are sorely out of touch with reality (taking reality and flipping it on its head in many instances), I remind myself that DU isn't representative of the population at large. This allows me to step back and just shake my head at the cra cra.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #64)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:29 PM

TeacherB87 (249 posts)

65. I know, but

a decade ago it wasn't like this at all. It was an actual community of people trying to discuss real stuff. My profile and post number belie my 13-year readership on this site. (I've gone through several screen names and spent most of the time just reading). This used to be the site I would escape to during the dark ages (2001 - 2006), and now I'd rather read Dailykos, 538, or Google News.

Reply to this post

Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #65)

Thu May 26, 2016, 04:45 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

66. That's interesting. I wasn't around back then. My theory:

The problem, I think, is that a vocal minority (which dominates the faceless, impersonal Interwebs) have taken what is a valid leftist critique (which some Democrats/Clinton supporters deny) of today's Democratic Party (and of the US political system) and distorted it with grand conspiracies and too much focus on individuals (the Cult of Personality detracts from systems analysis). This phenomenon is catching, so to speak. It snowballs.

And you end up with things like those I listed in a previous post (Sanders-Indiana media blackout, Clinton-Red State meme, people claiming that *none* of the opposition to Clinton has ever been rooted in sexism and misogyny, denying what research suggests about hypothetical general election match-up polling, various straw men arguments, etc.). This failure to accept reality...let me rephrase, this flat-out denial of reality and adherence to fantasy actually prevents people from organizing to alter systemic realities. That's what's so unfortunate about what I refer to as the cra cra.

And getting folks to give up their preconceived notions in the face of sound reasoning, research and so on, is a monumental task.

Why was that not the case when you first started posting at DU? Several reasons. Today's political climate and media exposure is different. Awareness of that valid leftist critique wasn't as great. The faceless, impersonal Internet has become an increasingly dominant part of individual lives. And so on.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #66)

Thu May 26, 2016, 08:38 PM

TeacherB87 (249 posts)

75. Also, progressives

stuck together back then because they had a singular foe (the Bush Administration) on which to focus their ire.

Reply to this post

Response to TeacherB87 (Reply #75)

Sat May 28, 2016, 03:39 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

82. That's certainly a factor, as well.

Ultimately, I think most progressives/liberals/Democrats will unite enough to defeat Trump. But the outgoing president being a Democrat this time around does make for a different dynamic.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 03:29 PM

Time for change (13,714 posts)

62. I just listened to it

If it was taken off, they put it back on.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 06:01 PM

Demsrule86 (52,344 posts)

72. How convenient

and untrue...I have seen Steve do this...it is understood that as soon as she has the majority...of pledged delegates the Supers comitt...60 moved to Obama after California which Obama lost by the way. The GOP has a magic number,we don't. That is why supers exist.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 06:09 PM

senz (11,945 posts)

74. HERE'S WHAT STEVE SAID.

Paraphrasing the words, but the numbers are Steve's.

Bernie says, correctly, that Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention and therefore would need super delegates to win. If Bernie does very well, he could end up with more pledged delegates than Hillary. Either way, Hillary cannot get enough pledged delegates to win without super delegates.

Here are the numbers:

Hillary has 1771 pledged delegates. Bernie has 1487 pledged delegates (284 fewer than Hill).

Hillary needs 612 more pledged delegates to get to 2383.

There are only 781 pledged delegates left in the remaining nine primaries:

Virgin Islands, PR, CA Mont NJ, NM, ND SD, DC

Even if Hill does well in several states, she will not be able to reach 2383.

Therefore she will need super delegates to get over the top, and there is a possibility Bernie will have done well enough (as well as polling far better against Trump) that super delegates may choose him.

------------------------
I also posted this to another thread on Steve's explanation.

Reply to this post

Response to senz (Reply #74)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:32 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

89. Nobody disputes the idea that Clinton won't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

So, making it seem as if this is a point of contention is a straw man.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #89)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:22 PM

eastwestdem (1,220 posts)

93. Exactly. And MSNBC took down the video because they knew it was misleading.

I can't wait for June 7, and all of this to be over!

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:44 AM

Demsrule86 (52,344 posts)

84. Really

Still posting this with no link?

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 06:49 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

86. Hillary needs 73 more delegates to clinch. Bernie needs 841.

You can hang your hopes on a SD revolution but I wouldn't count on it.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

Reply to this post

Response to ucrdem (Reply #86)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:35 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

96. She needs 612 more pledged delegates (Kornacki's number) to make it to the magic number

and winning without super-delegates, which are not counted until the convention.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #96)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:50 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

98. And Bernie would need nearly 1000.

This argument doesn't help him. He would need every pledged and unpledged delegate left, plus a handful of Hillary's supers.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #98)

Sun May 29, 2016, 08:53 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

99. He is 271 pledged delegates behind her right now

We will see where things stand after this last round of voting.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #99)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:02 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

100. So he would need that many plus ~600 more to get 2383 in pledged delegates alone.

The convention is set up to make it very difficult for a candidate to be nominated without the blessing of the Party stalwarts.

Why is it suvh a strain to understand that the majority of Democratic voters and office-holders want to nominate a Democrat to run for President?

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #100)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:15 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

103. Bernie was a Democratic Socialist for years and caucused with the Democratic Party

There is no label for Democratic Socialists in Congress, so he was grouped with Independents.

The difference between a Democrat and a Democratic Socialist was explained by Sanders himself as being basically a Democrat, but taking it a step further to say the government should work for all of the people, not just the wealthy and the corporations. To me, he is more like an FDR Democrat than anything else.

People are very fond of calling him a Socialist because they think the public will recoil from that word. However, the Socialists in Vermont had a real debate over whether or not they could support him because his views did not comport with theirs.

Personally, I don't care how people label him. The people of Vermont who know him the best and for the longest period of time give him an 86 percent approval rating and he attracts about 25 percent of the Republican vote when he runs. Republicans when asked why they vote for him say he is the only honest politician they have ever had.

That is the key word for me: honest. You might not like everything he says, but at least he tells you the truth.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #103)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:25 PM

okasha (11,573 posts)

105. It is perfectly possible to be a socialist and a Democrat at the same time.

I've been both for decades.

If Bernie was ever an honest politician, he gave up his integrity when he allowed his campaign to get away from him and turn toxic. He's no longer leading his followers and his managers; he's scrambling to keep up with them.

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #105)

Mon May 30, 2016, 12:06 AM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

115. No, he remains an honest broker and his campaign is doing well

Scrambling to keep up with them? Have you seen his schedule in California? It is more like the opposite is true.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to okasha (Reply #100)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:19 PM

Samantha (9,314 posts)

104. From what he said recently, he is shooting for a simple majority of pledged delegates over Hillary

and the Convention will take it from there. She needs 612 pledged delegates to make it to 2383.

Probably neither will make it to that number before the convention, as Kornacki and others have said, barring any unusual circumstances.

Sam

Reply to this post

Response to Samantha (Reply #104)

Mon May 30, 2016, 12:11 AM

brooklynite (68,730 posts)

116. To get a majority of pledged delegates, he'll need about 75% of the California vote...

...nothing indicates he'll be anywhere close to that.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:07 PM

underthematrix (5,640 posts)

101. This is irrelevant as it was in 2008

It says DELEGATE count must be 2383 or over to win nomination which includes both super and pledged delegates. Superdelegates can support whoever they want.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:32 PM

ancianita (22,025 posts)

107. I saw it and the way Kornacki explains it, Bernie's got a real shot at the convention.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun May 29, 2016, 09:56 PM

Demsrule86 (52,344 posts)

108. You really don't understand the process

Once she has secured the majority of pledged delegates...the supers move as they did for Obama...and she is the nominee...they commit. She needs 73 to have the majority of delegates...by the 7th she will probably need around 30 after a couple of smaller primaries come in...Obama did not win the nomination on pledged delegates ...the candidate with the most delegates wins...the supers move to them...they commit probably on June 7th... after Jersey and before California and she is declared the presumptive nominee...Bernie gets out somewhere between the 7th and 14th.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 12:00 AM

lmbradford (517 posts)

114. K & R

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 05:46 AM

beachbum bob (10,437 posts)

117. kornacki is an idiot....the nomination is based on pledge and supers...and hillary will have the

required amount a couple hours after they close the polls in New Jersey...california doesn't even matter

all the dreaming that hillary will be indicted...all the dreaming that supers will flock to bernie...it is what it is, a fantasy

hillary is the nominee,

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 10:28 PM

AzDar (14,023 posts)

119. Kickin' For The Dense And The Diehards...

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:38 PM

AzDar (14,023 posts)

121. Kicking for the obtuse...

Reply to this post

Response to AzDar (Reply #121)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:19 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

123. Show me a post where someone claimed Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

To act as if that is in dispute constitutes a straw man argument and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #123)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:27 AM

Jitter65 (3,089 posts)

125. If Hillary gets just 50% of the remaining pleaded delegates she will go into the convention needing

about 75-85 supers. You know damn well that she will bet at least that many wishing the first 5 states roll called.

Reply to this post

Response to Jitter65 (Reply #125)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:38 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

127. She'd need about 115. Regardless, she'll get there quickly.

Anyway, my point, of course, was just that so many in this thread have acted as if the point of the OP is in dispute. It isn't. I haven't seen anyone claim that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Nobody is being "obtuse" about that.

DU is littered with straw man arguments.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:24 AM

Lil Missy (17,865 posts)

129. It doesn't matter. Superdelegates DO count - regardless of Bernie insisting they don't.

He has no authority to change the rules of the game, so his word on this is nothing but HOT AIR.

Reply to this post

Response to Lil Missy (Reply #129)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:21 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

131. #BernieScience.

They'll go to their graves believing he was robbed. That's a lousy thing to do to people.

Reply to this post

Response to ucrdem (Reply #131)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:46 AM

Lil Missy (17,865 posts)

132. And how ironic that he wants to steal unpledged delegates that voted for Hillary in order to win.

He's some piece of work. And Ted Devine has all the characteristics of a snake-oil salesman. Bunch of smoke-and-mirror crooks.

Reply to this post

Response to amborin (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:31 AM

beachbum bob (10,437 posts)

133. lol...again with the alternative reality....the nomiation is based on super delegates too

hillary has it sown up....tuesday at 9pm she is our nominee

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)

Steve Kornacki Explains Why HRC Won't Get Enough Pledged Delegates to Get Nom Even After California

1. so we can make it seen

4. yes, please make it go viral; this is not what the M$M, and especially MSNBC, wants anyone to see

57. Uh, the video is *from* MSNBC.

120. yes, but they removed if from their website

122. People here, including myself, watched the video after you made that claim.

53. RIP Sanders

67. you do know that "Wallyworld" is a FOX personality? nt

70. No I did not know that

2. K&R nt

3. Thanks for this, amborin! I clicked on it and it played. This MSNBC vid is AMAZING!

5. yes, Peace Patriot, MSNBC took it down, amazing that Kornacki was permitted to run through the math

6. "War Admiral" - how ironic. CNN panel tonight couldn't wait to conflate Trump protesters with Bernie

10. Yes, I just watched it and it looks like a brokered convention will happen

11. He also said Clinton and Sanders are close in CA and that will not put her over the top (eom)

58. It will be over after California

95. According to Kornachi, after the estimated pledged delegates are awarded, she needs to win 95%

109. She does not need a certain number of pledged delegates to win...

112. I understand that a simple majority can work but I also understand the supers do not count until

126. I don't think you understand how the process works

118. Ditto what Samantha says, and, additionally, Obama was not under FBI Investigation

54. It has to go to a second vote to be a brokered convention

56. Exactly. There are only 2 candidates. 1 of them will reach 2383.

27. I rec this post.

124. thank you on both counts!!!!!!!

38. What a great commentary!

94. Remember Secretariat?

106. I just took a look at the film of the actual race between

7. It's exactly as Bernie said. Yet "some" here insist Hill has already won, BUT SHE HASN'T.

8. I sent it to a facebook friend who has a huge following.

13. Try to imagine Hillary being President and her running her administration the way she has run

15. So what. She is going to win on the first ballot. So much ado about what?

17. So why the panic?

29. Have you noticed...

30. Finnessing finally a time line

33. I've been enjoying your local reports.

34. Thanks

35. Oh dear...

36. Tom and I intend to

39. That press conference was extremely interesting!

9. Big Ol' K & R!

12. Kick -- b/c the Hill folk need to see this!

14. K&R nt

16. I haven't seen many people expect her to hit the 2383 on pledged delegates alone.

18. We shall see if your vote suppression efforts work out.

19. My vote suppression efforts?

128. they're like little ads

130. I wish they would.

20. We have always known this

21. I'm posting this info right now in GD: Primaries, amborin.

22. Kornaki was repeating what Sanders said..

23. and that means exactly...what?

24. Amazing. Did this get X-POSTED to the Group, I hope.

134. please do

25. Go Bernie!

26. No, look again, Kornacki is only talking about pledged delegates.

28. Kick! nt

31. The threshold is 2384 total delegates, not 2384 pledged delegates alone.

73. Common sense and objectivity doesn't go over well with some 'round these parts.

83. What it means is 1884 pledged delegates for Hillary, vs 2344 pledged delegates for Bernie

32. K & R nt

37. k/r thanks

40. There must be an epidemic of people claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone.

41. Clinton will win the nomination June 7 in California.

42. Hillary cannot reach the required number of pledged delegates before the convention,

43. Both pledged and superdelegates count equally toward the total needed.

44. You are not making any sense what-so-ever! Supers don't even vote until the convention.

45. And?

76. You are wrong, I watched it and reported what he said here

77. He's only talking about pledged delegates because that's what Sanders is trying to push.

78. You are the one living in la-la land if you think you can count those SD votes before they are cast

79. That's not even at issue, so why are you only looking at the pledged count,

80. Take a look at the thread title and that will answer your question

81. Um... that was your assertion, I simply questioned your erroneous conclusions. nt

97. They're not pretending.

48. No delegates

52. Everyone "pretends" the winner on election day has won the election

102. you do know they vote on the first ballot

110. Supers commit

51. There is no "required" number of pledged delegates

57. Uh, the video is from MSNBC.