The current 538 "best guess" estimate of delegates is:

[brooklynite]

Sanders 1595
Bloomberg 862
Biden 838
Buttigieg 314
Warren 233
Klobuchar 112

If Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar merged their delegates (53%) behind a moderate candidate, that would be "wrong". Correct?

If so, what do you actually imagine would happen at contested or brokered Convention?

[squirecam]

1. What do you mean wrong?

There are no super delegates involved. In the hypothetical you gave, the pledged delegates determined the outcome. What is “wrong” with that?

I thought the unfairness was in super delegates overturning the will of the voters. That hasn’t happened, and it didn’t happen in your hypothetical.

[brooklynite]

2. My understanding is that if Sanders is ahead in delegates, no matter how many...

...it would be unfair (according to his supporters) to deny him the nomination.

[squirecam]

9. There is a difference between

Being a few delegates shy of a majority and being only a few delegates ahead of second place.

[msongs]

15. the nominee is a majority of 50% + 1 not a plurality of 30-29-15 etc nt

[FBaggins]

55. Not "no matter how many"

It's one thing if he falls a little short of a majority and the superdelegates lean the other way (though it will still cause problems)...

... the scenario above is dramatically different. If it actually works out that way, it would almost be suicide to pick someone else.

[TwilightZone]

61. They're not differentiating.

From what I've seen, some of them are clearly saying that regardless of the lead, Sanders should get the nomination.

Which is ridiculous.

[squirecam]

62. Superdelegates changing the will of the voters

Is much worse then the OP example.

The example is the delegates choosing among themselves. Which is their job.

[Horizens]

60. OH NO

Going into the 2016 convention

Hillary had 2205 pledged delegtes
Sanders had 1846 pledged delegates

Hillary won 34 primaries/caucuses, sanders 23

Hillary won 55% of the primary/caucus popular vote, sanders 43%

Sanders WHOLE campaign argument from early May until the July convention was that the super delegates SHOULD IGNORE THE ABOVE AND ALL VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS THE STRONGER NATIONAL CANDIDATE.

(Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests.)

[TwilightZone]

12. Some are insisting that Sanders get the nod for any size lead as long as it's a plurality.

For example, if four candidates are left and it's 30/25/25/20 (made-up numbers for simplicity's sake), Sanders supporters are insisting that the other 70% get behind Sanders or chaos will ensue and the party would self-destruct.

[squirecam]

17. That amount of a "lead" is small enough

As to be meaningless.

47%? Ok.
40%? Maybe, maybe not
30%? Nope.

[Celerity]

75. 40 to 45% of the pledged delgates for Bernie and no other candidates

over 30% is a nightmare on every level. He is just below the 'so close it's a given' level but also tere is no one within 15 points or so of him.

Say

Bernie 43
Bloomberg 27
Biden 22

If he were blocked at that level, he and his supporters will go bonkers.

Disasterclass numbers.

[PTWB]

90. That's why we need all of the centrist candidates except one to drop.

[BlueIdaho]

3. If everyone stays in... nt.

[squirecam]

5. It will likely never be 1v1.

You have never Sanders and Never Bloomberg. Those two are guaranteed to be in at the end.

That leaves someone attempting to be the unifying candidate between them.

[BlueIdaho]

8. Until they run out of money

Or decide their ego is not a good enough reason to fracture the party.

[squirecam]

10. How are they fracturing the party?

They may end up either being the unifying choice, or using their delegates to put Sanders or Bloomberg over the top, in exchange for something.

Either way, they are fixing the fracture, not causing it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Bernie IS the unifying candidate... he unifies the working class and low-income voters

to make him the defacto Democratic nominee for President!! You don't get more unifying than that!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[CalFione]

38. Bernie unifies the majority of electoral votes in the general election against him.

[Sloumeau]

42. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. -1

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[still_one]

59. Lol. With his marginalizing of those establishment Democrats, and the hiring of Jill Stein

supporter Briahna Joy Gray, and Hillary hating David Sirota, and Nins Turner

What a Unifier

[at140]

101. Bernie+Elizabeth least corrupted by Billionaires. eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. You'll get no argument from me on that one!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[TwilightZone]

4. Bloomberg/Biden have more combined (estimated, of course) than Sanders.

Interesting. Wouldn't be enough for a majority, but I suspect the crossover between their supporters is much higher than either candidate and Sanders supporters.

If Sanders heads into the convention with 25-30% of the delegates, he'd be unlikely to get the nod unless supporters of the other candidates somewhat surprisingly got behind him. I think the polls (and claims) indicating that the majority would are a bit unrealistic.

The problem with burning bridges....

[madville]

6. Outside of a few rogues, the pledged delegates would reflect those totals in the first round

In the second round the pledged delegates would be "released". I would predict complete chaos if Bernie was denied the nomination while having such a clear lead with the voters.

[squirecam]

11. What exactly is a clear lead?

Nt

[madville]

31. The example in the OP n/t

[squirecam]

39. Because you say so?

I think everyone has their own definition of clear that might not match with yours.

[Garrett78]

74. I would think 700+ delegates meets everyone's definition of a clear lead.

Nearly twice as many as the next closest competitor? Yeah, that's clear.

[PTWB]

92. Enough to cause chaos, not everyone.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Which is why there WON'T be chaos. They know Bernie's the obvious choice to assure victory

over tRumpty Dumbty!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[ehrnst]

63. I love country music!!

[unc70]

86. She had five husbands

A bit of difficulty standing by her man/men!!

[ehrnst]

93. Yes, but that song... he's a loser, but she's gonna stand by him no matter what.

She'll forgive any faults or cheating, because "after all, he's just a man."

[Hoyt]

7. Get ready for some ticked off Sanders supporters.

[msongs]

13. lol that's the standard nt

[Sloumeau]

44. LOL. Agreed. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. Not gonna be a problem, cuz Bernie is winning the nomination on the 1st ballot!!

Super Delegates do not represent We The People, so WE will take matters into our OWN hands and restore democracy OURSELVES by nominating Bernie to be The People's Champion!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Hoyt]

71. trumpsters will love that.

[ahoysrcsm]

99. The Automatic Delegates AKA super delegates. Do In Fact Represent We The People

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2020_Democratic_Party_automatic_delegates

Here is a detailed list, titles include "distinguished party leader" "DNC member" "governor" "representative" "senator"

If you don't believe Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama do not have the Democratic Party's best interest in mind, or WE THE PEOPLE best interest in mind. What party do you think you belong to?

[DanTex]

14. Don't know about "wrong" but it would be undemocratic.

I think technically that’s not against the rules. But if those numbers hold up, I don’t see what the rationale would be for denying the clear delegate leader the nomination.

But it probably depends on who you ask. I imagine supporters of the candidate who ends up with the nomination might have a different opinion than supporters of the candidate who gets the most delegates but not the nomination.

[msongs]

16. math again, if more people do NOT WANT you than want you you should not be the nominee nt

[DanTex]

25. In that case we would end up with nobody as nominee.

Assuming the delegates come out like they did in the OP. Because nobody would have an outright majority.

In which case it makes sense to go with whoever the most people do want.

[squirecam]

51. If Bloomberg and Biden united

Then the most people would want them.

[squirecam]

19. This isn't undemocratic.

It isn’t super delegates overturning the will of the voters. It is the delegates determining the nominee as is their job.

[TwilightZone]

20. It's based on majority rule, not plurality.

If the "clear delegate leader" only has 30% support, for example, then other factors should come in to play.

Just like when candidates drop out during the primaries - their support doesn't go solely to the leader. It goes to the candidates that those people consider the next best option.

Welcome to democracy.

[DanTex]

24. Bernie currently polls as the most popular second choice.

So there’s that. I know about pluralities and majorities. I’m just saying that in this situation I don’t see any plausible rationale for nominating someone with less votes. And I don’t think too many people would.

[squirecam]

27. Based on what?

The actual outcomes have shown Bernie losing second choices to others, in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Even the NV poll showing Bernie way ahead showed him last with second and third choice voters.


Second choice:
Steyer 14
Amy 20
Pete 15
Warren 20
Sanders 12

[DanTex]

36. Based on polls. Bernie expands his lead when you include second choices.

For example, the latest NBC poll, for first choice only:
Bernie Sanders........................ 27
Joe Biden................................. 15
Michael Bloomberg.................. 14
Elizabeth Warren ..................... 14
Pete Buttigieg .......................... 13

For first and second choice:
Bernie Sanders........................ 45
Elizabeth Warren ..................... 29
Pete Buttigieg .......................... 29
Joe Biden................................. 25
Michael Bloomberg.................. 23

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6779408/200085-NBCWSJ-February-Poll.pdf

The other polls I've seen are pretty much the same.

[squirecam]

45. You are citing a national poll?

It’s useless for second choices. How do you know the Warren supporter in CA’s second choice vs the Warren supporters second choice in Texas. Or how those choices affect any given state? You can’t.

The poll I showed from NEVADA tells a much different story. And that was Bernie’s best poll.

[DanTex]

49. Yes. I have no idea why you think it's useless.

I'm sure it varies state by state, but national polls give the overall picture.

[squirecam]

50. National polls have always been useless.

We have 57 different elections. It’s the state by state results that matter.

[ehrnst]

54. Did you read the post - they explained why it's useless.

[Prosper]

105. What it means when Bernie is top second choice is people are not

comfortable picking Bernie first in a poll. But when the curtain closes they will vote for Bernie.

[TwilightZone]

32. Second-choice polls taken now are meaningless.

Check again at convention time when the nomination is at stake.

[squirecam]

34. The one I posted is for Nevada

And is thus not meaningless at all.

[TwilightZone]

46. In the context of a contested convention it is.

[Turin_C3PO]

41. If that happens

it won’t matter what candidate the moderates get behind because we’ll lose in a landslide.

[TwilightZone]

56. I'm not sure I agree.

In my hypothetical example, if Sanders goes in with a marginal lead (in this case, 5%) and the rest of the candidates coalesce behind one candidate to award that not-Sanders person the nomination with a majority, I don't think it's necessarily a problem for November.

I think it would be more of a problem if we just anointed the candidate with 30% the winner without allowing realignment.

[sdfernando]

30. Ugh....READ THE RULES!

Someone posted it up thread....50%+1....a plurality means shit! Sanders has chosen to run in the Democratic Primary...therefore he has chosen to play by the rules set forth by the same. If he can't play by the rules of the party HE HAS CHOSEN TO RUN WITH then he should quit right now.

[DanTex]

40. I know it's not against the rules. I'm just saying it's not democratic.

[sdfernando]

48. Caucuses are not democratic either but thats the rules that are played....

that is what we have to live with.

No, If you haven't guessed already, I'm not excited about Sanders as our nominee, but I WILL VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!

[TwilightZone]

57. No, giving people a ballot and telling them who they have to vote for is not democratic.

In fact, it's the very definition of undemocratic.

[ehrnst]

69. +1000. But there standards for Sanders, then there those for everyone else.

[ehrnst]

64. What do you mean by "not democratic?"

But I'll play...

democratic with Big D? Well, yes, it's certainly Democratic, which is a Political Party, and those are the rules set by the party. Bernie knew them - he's been a Superdelegate for crying out loud, and agreed to them when he chose to jump onto the Democratic ticket.

democratic with little d? Hon, political parties are private entities - subject to FEC regulations of course, but they are not "democracy" as in the founding fathers, any more than your family was growing up, nor DU is, nor caucuses, nor are most workplaces...etc

Crying that something "isn't democratic" (little d) is going to mean you are crying a whole lot of the time.

So, which is it?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Rules were meant to be changed... just ask Mike Bloomberg how he got on the debate stage.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[ehrnst]

67. What do you mean by "not democratic?"

But I'll play...

democratic with Big D? Well, yes, it's certainly Democratic, which is a Political Party, and those are the rules set by the party. Bernie knew them - he's been a Superdelegate for crying out loud, and agreed to them when he chose to jump onto the Democratic ticket.

democratic with little d? Hon, political parties are private entities - subject to FEC regulations of course, but they are not "democracy" as in the founding fathers, any more than your family was growing up, nor DU is, nor caucuses, nor are most workplaces...etc

Crying that something "isn't democratic" (little d) is going to mean you are crying a whole lot of the time.

So, which is it?

[Renew Deal]

18. Is that before super-delegates?

What is the magic number?

[TwilightZone]

21. 1990

And, yes, it's before SDs.

[squirecam]

22. 538

Says about 2000.

[Sloumeau]

23. Actually, the adding up of delegates is actually what happens in contested conventions.

This has happened a number of times since the birth of the U.S., but not for decades. What you would expect is that Sanders and Warren would combine their delegates for a Sanders/Warren Prez/VP position
.
The Bad News For Bernie Sanders: Even if he combines with Warren, the Moderate Dems will still end up with more delegates. That is, unless the unpledged delegates go for Bernie, which has a real chance of happening, but I hope it does not.

The Moderates would be trickier. No way Biden is going for a VP slot again, so there won't be a Bloomberg/Biden Prez/VP ticket, unless Bloomberg is willing to go VP, which seems unlikely. So, how do the two big dogs of Biden and Bloomberg work it out? Odds are, one of them needs to go for something else. Imagine Bloomberg, a man with 60 Billion bucks, as Secretary of the Treasury. Think he could live with that? He could make the money flow for him like rivers. It might be worth giving up the Presidency.

OK, so Imagine Biden Prez, Bloomberg Secretary of Money, Buttigieg could be Secretary of State, with all of those Language skills, and it would set him up for President in the Future. Klobuchar becomes VP. So the Dem ticket is Biden/Klobuchar with Bloomberg as Money Secretary and Buttigieg as Secretary of State.

Or, if Bloomberg Prez, then Klobuchar VP, Buttigieg Sec. of State, and Biden trades his Delegates for something Primo. Bloomberg is rich as heck. He can find some way for Biden to get something Primo. Maybe he buys Biden an island or something.

I don't see Buttigieg as VP, even if he gets more Delegates than Klobuchar. They need a woman on the ticket, and Buttigieg as Secretary of State totally front-loads him for President down the road.

[squirecam]

26. The moderates would have to join.

If Bloomberg and Biden didn’t join, then both of them would be responsible for making Sanders the nominee. A result Biden would not like, and Bloomberg despises at any cost.

I think Bloomberg throws his support to Biden in that case.

[honest.abe]

33. I suspect the moderates will join and save the nation from disaster.

[apcalc]

53. Gawd I hope so.

[Turin_C3PO]

35. If the leader in delegates

doesn’t get the nomination, we’re doomed to failure and a possible party split. The supporters of the one who had the most delegates would likely stay home and we’d get trounced in a landslide by Trump.

[CalFione]

43. Not if that candidate rallies behind the ticket.

[squirecam]

47. Yes.

Nt

[Codeine]

87. The candidate in question

is psychologically incapable of doing that.

[Moderateguy]

72. IMO, it might come to that tough decision

The #1 goal is to have some power in DC...

If there is still a feeling that a Sanders nomination might cost us the House and leave us completely out of power— a very tough decision will have to be made

[Zolorp]

37. There is nothing "wrong" in a brokered convention.

Nothing.

Hell, some conventions have come out with a nominee that became president who wasn't even a candidate for the nomination.

IF the convention is brokered, ANYTHING can happen, ANYTHING!

[apcalc]

52. If accurate, we are so screwed.

[squirecam]

66. Why?

If Biden and Bloomberg decide to run as a ticket, what is wrong or undemocratic about that?

[Horizens]

58. A LITTLE HISTROY

Going into the 2016 convention

Hillary had 2205 pledged delegtes
Sanders had 1846 pledged delegates

Hillary won 34 primaries/caucuses, sanders 23

Hillary won 55% of the primary/caucus popular vote, sanders 43%

Sanders WHOLE campaign argument from early May until the July convention was that the super delegates SHOULD IGNORE THE ABOVE AND ALL VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS THE STRONGER NATIONAL CANDIDATE.

(Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests.)

[Walleye]

65. I'm sure Bloomberg could just buy all the delegates he needs

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. SERIOUSLY!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Sloumeau]

79. Yes, he might be able to.

At a million dollars a delegate, he could buy a 1000 delegates for a cool $ 1 billion, and odds are he would not even need to spend a million dollars a delegate.

[Walleye]

81. Funny. I did the same math in my head

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Sad but true... and that some Democrats wouldn't question that idea is what's truly sad!!

However, not to worry... Bernie is NOT gonna let that happen, as he'll have the nomination wrapped up, most likely, BEFORE Super Tuesday... but CERTAINLY afterwards!!

ttp://imgur.com/XGFl2EI.jpg
Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

76. If Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar merged delegates, they would still have less than Sanders

Based on the numbers in your OP.

David Plouffe said if the Dems dare to select a nominee who doesn’t have the most earned delegates, it would take “a generation” for the party to recover from that misstep.

If the non-billionaire moderates are serious about taking the nomination, the three of them need to have a summit and decide which two will drop out before Super Tuesday. That’s the only way one of them will have a mathematical shot at beating Sanders in delegates.

[squirecam]

77. You are wrong

Biden and Bloomberg together exceed Sanders in the OP example.

1700>1595

[Fiendish Thingy]

89. No YOU are wrong- based on the numbers in the OP:

Biden 838 + Buttigieg 314 + Klobuchar 112 = 1,264

[squirecam]

95. This is true if Bloomberg is excluded, but

The OP example was inclusive of Bloomberg. Together those candidates greatly exceeded Sanders share.

[redstateblues]

78. Looks like four more years of Trump. Nice work we've done

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Sloumeau]

80. There are so many ways that this could end up a total nightmare. :) nt

[The Mouth]

82. I would speculate that if those were the final numbers

and Bernie did not get the nomination due to brokering, that a fair number of his supporters wold not support the candidate.

It would be one thing if it was really close between Sanders and number two, and of course if he wasn't number one and one of his 'supporters' didn't go blue, you'd know they were a ratfucking troll in the first place.

But if he's way out ahead and doesn't get the nod? Not only will there be defections, there will be PERMANENT losses to our future base, and not just 'bern it down' disruptors, but genuinely disillusioned young people that we need.

Just my take

[Moderateguy]

85. Here's MY take

If the party feels that it will be a bigger loss if Sanders was the nominee vs if he was not, they will choose not to nominate Sanders and cut their losses

[ret5hd]

84. Your job here is almost done.

[Codeine]

88. His job of being one of our most valued

posters and a generally swell guy? I agree.

[brooklynite]

91. You're too kind...

[totodeinhere]

94. If Bernie goes into the convention with twice as many delegates as the second place candidate, and

it gets taken away from him on the second ballot then the Democrats may as well kiss this election goodbye. Our only hope if this scenario plays out would be to get behind the leading candidate and work our asses off for him or her. There would be no other path to victory.

[squirecam]

96. What do you mean by taken away?

There are no super delegates voting. These are the pledged delegates voting to pick the nominee, as they should. No one short of a majority is owed anything.

[totodeinhere]

97. You apparently do not understand the process. Super delegates get to vote on the

second ballot and beyond.

[squirecam]

98. I'm not talking about super delegates taking the #2 person

Over the #1. That would be wrong. I’m going with the OP example, And the pledged delegates choose the nominee because no one had a majority. That’s their job.

Their job is not a coronation. They don’t simply vote for a leader with 30%.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. BIIIIIINNGGOOOOO!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[brooklynite]

100. FOLLOWUP: everyone agrees that it's up to the Convention to decide...except Sanders.

[The Mouth]

106. Oh, of course it's up to the convention

My point is that if the numbers look like the original post and Bernie doesn't get it, there will be repercussions among groups of people who *would* vote for Bernie but don't give a crap about the convention, the DLC, or really the Democratic Party as a venerable institution. There are a lot of Bernie voters who the party can't take for granted. On the other hand, most of us long term Democrats would suck it up (or better yet, campaign hard) for Bernie.

Not saying that's right, just saying that if Bernie goes into the convention well ahead, but doesn't get it, there will be not only the loss of votes from people who regard all moderates as part of the problem, but - I fear- a possibly permanent disillusionment among a big swath of people we need going forward.

Nothing I can do either way, just a factor that hopefully delegates on the second ballot in the above scenario might consider. The Democratic party is owed exactly nothing from anyone, that some of us have longstanding loyalties is nice and all, but that has to be earned by party leadership on a constant basis.