Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you San Diego for that warm, warm welcome and thanks to Ellen for those moving words, her introduction, and for reminding us its not only our men and women in uniform that serve our country, its their families, their spouses, their children, and we are grateful to each and every one of them. I want to recognize and thank Congressman Scott Peters for being here, thank you very much.
And all of the other electeds and service members, active duty and retired National Guard and Reservists, veterans, military spouses, family members, all who are with us today.
On Monday, we observed Memorial Day a day that means a great deal to San Diego, home of so many active-duty and former military and their families. We honor the sacrifice of those who died for our country in many ways by living our values, by making this a stronger and fairer nation, and by carrying out a smart and principled foreign policy.
Thats what I want to speak about today the challenges we face in protecting our country, and the choice at stake in this election.
Its a choice between a fearful America thats less secure and less engaged with the world, and a strong, confident America that leads to keep our country safe and our economy growing.
As Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady, I had the honor of representing America abroad and helping shape our foreign policy at home. As a candidate for President, theres nothing I take more seriously than our national security. Ive offered clear strategies for how to defeat ISIS, strengthen our alliances, and make sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. And Im going to keep Americas security at the heart of my campaign.
Because as you know so well, Americans arent just electing a President in November. Were choosing our next commander-in-chief the person we count on to decide questions of war and peace, life and death.
And like many across our country and around the world, I believe the person the Republicans have nominated for President cannot do the job.
Donald Trumps ideas arent just different they are dangerously incoherent. Theyre not even really ideas just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.
He is not just unprepared he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes because its not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.
We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trumps hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America.
This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.
He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists even though those are war crimes.
He says he doesnt have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has quote a very good brain.
He also said, I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me. You know what? I dont believe him.
He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain arent heroes.
He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.
He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.
And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are and I quote a third-world country. And hes been saying things like that for decades.
Those are the words my friends of someone who doesnt understand America or the world.
And theyre the words of someone who would lead us in the wrong direction. Because if you really believe America is weak with our military, our values, our capabilities that no other country comes close to matching then you dont know America.
And you certainly dont deserve to lead it.
Thats why even if I werent in this race Id be doing everything I could to make sure Donald Trump never becomes President because I believe he will take our country down a truly dangerous path.
Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft. I wrestled with the Chinese over a climate deal in Copenhagen, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia, twisted arms to bring the world together in global sanctions against Iran, and stood up for the rights of women, religious minorities and LGBT people around the world.
And I have, I have sat in the Situation Room and advised the President on some of the toughest choices he faced.
So Im not new to this work. And Im proud to run on my record, because I think the choice before the American people in this election is clear.
I believe in strong alliances; clarity in dealing with our rivals; and a rock-solid commitment to the values that have always made America great. And I believe with all my heart that America is an exceptional country that were still, in Lincolns words, the last, best hope of earth. We are not a country that cowers behind walls. We lead with purpose, and we prevail.
And if America doesnt lead, we leave a vacuum and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then theyll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
That is not an outcome we can live with.
As I see it, there are some important things our next President must do to secure American leadership and keep us safe and our economy growing in the years ahead. These are all areas in which Donald Trump and I profoundly disagree. And they are all critical to our future.
First, we need to be strong at home.
That means investing in our infrastructure, education and innovation the fundamentals of a strong economy. We need to reduce income inequality, because our country cant lead effectively when so many are struggling to provide the basics for their families. And we need to break down the barriers that hold Americans back, including barriers of bigotry and discrimination.
Compare that with what Trump wants to do. His economic plans would add more than $30 trillion thats trillion with a T $30 trillion to our national debt over the next 20 years. He has no ideas on education. No ideas on innovation. He has a lot of ideas about who to blame, but no clue about what to do.
None of what Donald Trump is offering will make America stronger at home. And that would make us weaker in the world.
Second, we need to stick with our allies.
Americas network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. And our allies deliver for us every day.
Our armed forces fight terrorists together; our diplomats work side by side. Allies provide staging areas for our military, so we can respond quickly to events on the other side of the world. And they share intelligence that helps us identify and defuse potential threats.
Take the threat posed by North Korea perhaps the most repressive regime on the planet, run by a sadistic dictator who wants to develop long-range missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon to the United States.
When I was Secretary of State, we worked closely with our allies Japan and South Korea to respond to this threat, including by creating a missile defense system that stands ready to shoot down a North Korean warhead, should its leaders ever be reckless enough to launch one at us. The technology is ours. Key parts of it are located on Japanese ships. All three countries contributed to it. And this month, all three of our militaries will run a joint drill to test it.
Thats the power of allies.
And its the legacy of American troops who fought and died to secure those bonds, because they knew we were safer with friends and partners.
Now Moscow and Beijing are deeply envious of our alliances around the world, because they have nothing to match them. Theyd love for us to elect a President who would jeopardize that source of strength. If Donald gets his way, theyll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.
Thats why it is no small thing when he talks about leaving NATO, or says hell stay neutral on Israels security.
Its no small thing when he calls Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers. Were lucky to have two friendly neighbors on our land borders. Why would he want to make one of them an enemy?
And its no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan, encourage them to get nuclear weapons, and said this about a war between Japan and North Korea and I quote If they do, they do. Good luck, enjoy yourself, folks. I wonder if he even realizes hes talking about nuclear war.
Yes, our friends need to contribute their fair share. I made that point long before Donald Trump came onto the scene and a number of them have increased their defense spending. The real debate here is whether we keep these alliances strong or cut them off. What he says would weaken our country.
Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the frontlines solving problems before they threaten us at home.
Diplomacy is often the only way to avoid a conflict that could end up exacting a much greater cost. It takes patience, persistence and an eye on the long game but its worth it.
Take the nuclear agreement with Iran. When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb. Some called for military action. But that could have ignited a broader war that could have mired our troops in another Middle Eastern conflict.
President Obama chose a different path. And I got to work leading the effort to impose crippling global sanctions. We brought Iran to the table. We began talks. And eventually, we reached an agreement that should block every path for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as Ive said many times before, our approach must be distrust and verify. The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israels security is non-negotiable. Theyre our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them.
But there is no question that the world and the United States, we are safer now than we were before this agreement. And we accomplished it without firing a single shot, dropping a single bomb or putting a single American soldier in harms way.
Donald Trump says we shouldnt have done the deal. We should have walked away. But that would have meant no more global sanctions, and Iran resuming their nuclear program and the world blaming us. So then what? War? Telling the world, good luck, you deal with Iran?
Of course Trump doesnt have answers to those questions. Donald Trump doesnt know the first thing about Iran or its nuclear program. Ask him. Itll become very clear, very quickly.
Theres no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal.
But it doesnt work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of 60 Minutes as Putin was, is not the same thing as actually dealing with Putin.
So the stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels. We all know the tools Donald Trump brings to the table bragging, mocking, composing nasty tweets Im willing to bet hes writing a few right now.
But those tools wont do the trick. Rather than solving global crises, he would create new ones.
He has no sense of what it takes to deal with multiple countries with competing interests and reaching a solution that everyone can get behind. In fact, he is downright contemptuous of that work. And that means hes much more likely to end up leading us into conflict.
Fourth, we need to be firm but wise with our rivals.
Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Beijing dumps cheap steel in our markets. That hurts American workers. Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATOs doorstep. Now Ive gone toe-to-toe with Russia and China, and many other different leaders around the world. So I know we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can.
Thats how I could work with Russia to conclude the New START treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles, and with China to increase pressure on North Korea. Its how our diplomats negotiated the landmark agreement on climate change, which Trump now wants to rip up.
The key was never forgetting who we were dealing with not friends or allies, but countries that share some common interests with us amid many disagreements.
Donald doesnt see the complexity. He wants to start a trade war with China. And I understand a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements I do too. But a trade war is something very different. We went down that road in the 1930s. It made the Great Depression longer and more painful. Combine that with his comments about defaulting on our debt, and its not hard to see how a Trump presidency could lead to a global economic crisis.
And I have to say, I dont understand Donalds bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America. He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength. He said, Youve got to give Kim Jong Un credit for taking over North Korea something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie. And he said if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, hed give him an A.
Now, Ill leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants.
I just wonder how anyone could be so wrong about who Americas real friends are. Because it matters. If you dont know exactly who youre dealing with, men like Putin will eat your lunch.
Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists.
As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, Ive laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.
We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground. We need to keep pursuing diplomacy to end Syrias civil war and close Iraqs sectarian divide, because those conflicts are keeping ISIS alive. We need to lash up with our allies, and ensure our intelligence services are working hand-in-hand to dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists. We need to win the battle in cyberspace.
And of course we need to strengthen our defenses here at home.
That in a nutshell is my plan for defeating ISIS.
Whats Trumps? Well he wont say. He is literally keeping it a secret. The secret, of course, is he has no idea what hed do to stop ISIS.
Just look at the few things hes actually said on the subject.
Hes actually said and I quote maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS. Oh, okay let a terrorist group have control of a major country in the Middle East.
Then he said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.
He also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS, which would mean mass civilian casualties.
Its clear he doesnt have a clue what hes talking about. So we cant be certain which of these things he would do. But we can be certain that hes capable of doing any or all of them. Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge.
And through all his loose talk, theres one constant theme: demonizing Muslims and playing right into the hands of ISIS. His proposal to ban 1.5 billion Muslims from even coming to our country doesnt just violate the religious freedom our country was founded on. Its also a huge propaganda victory for ISIS. And it alienates the very countries we need to actually help us in this fight.
A Trump Presidency would embolden ISIS. We cannot take that risk.
This isnt reality television this is actual reality.
And defeating global terrorist networks and protecting the homeland takes more than empty talk and a handful of slogans. It takes a real plan, real experience and real leadership. Donald Trump lacks all three.
And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that.
Ive worked side-by-side with admirals and generals, and visited our troops in theaters of war. Ive fought for better health care for our National Guard, better services for our veterans, and more support for our Gold Star families. We cannot put the lives of our young men and women in uniform in Donald Trumps hands.
Sixth, we need to stay true to our values.
Trump says over and over again, The world is laughing at us. Hes been saying this for decades, he didnt just start this year.
He bought full-page ads in newspapers across the country back in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was President, saying that America lacked a backbone and the world was you guessed it laughing at us. He was wrong then, and hes wrong now and youve got to wonder why somebody who fundamentally has so little confidence in America, and has felt that way for at least 30 years, wants to be our President.
The truth is, theres not a country in the world that can rival us. Its not just that we have the greatest military, or that our economy is larger, more durable, more entrepreneurial than any in the world. Its also that Americans work harder, dream bigger and we never, ever stop trying to make our country and world a better place.
So it really matters that Donald Trump says things that go against our deepest-held values. It matters when he says hell order our military to murder the families of suspected terrorists. During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safety. Donald Trump may not get it, but thats what honor looks like.
And it also matters when he makes fun of disabled people, calls women pigs, proposes banning an entire religion from our country, or plays coy with white supremacists. America stands up to countries that treat women like animals, or people of different races, religions or ethnicities as less human.
What happens to the moral example we set for the world and for our own children if our President engages in bigotry?
And by the way, Mr. Trump every time you insult American Muslims or Mexican immigrants, remember that plenty of Muslims and immigrants serve and fight in our armed forces.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump could learn something from them.
That brings me to the final point I want to make today the temperament it takes to be Commander-in-Chief.
Every President faces hard choices every day, with imperfect information and conflicting imperatives. Thats the job.
A revolution threatens to topple a government in a key region, an adversary reaches out for the first time in years what do you do?
Making the right call takes a cool head and respect for the facts. It takes a willingness to listen to other peoples points of view with a truly open mind. It also takes humility knowing you dont know everything because if youre convinced youre always right, youll never ask yourself the hard questions.
I remember being in the Situation Room with President Obama, debating the potential Bin Laden operation. The Presidents advisors were divided. The intelligence was compelling but far from definitive. The risks of failure were daunting. The stakes were significant for our battle against al Qaeda and our relationship with Pakistan. Most of all, the lives of those brave SEALs and helicopter pilots hung in the balance.
It was a decision only the President could make. And when he did, it was as crisp and courageous a display of leadership as Ive ever seen.
Now imagine Donald Trump sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the United States. Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouses or children into battle. Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when hes angry, but Americas entire arsenal.
Do we want him making those calls someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?
I have a lot of faith that the American people will make the right decision. This is a country with a deep reservoir of common sense and national pride. Were all counting on that.
Because making Donald Trump our commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake. It would undo so much of the work that Republicans and Democrats alike have done over many decades to make America stronger and more secure. It would set back our standing in the world more than anything in recent memory. And it would fuel an ugly narrative about who we are that were fearful, not confident; that we want to let others determine our future for us, instead of shaping our own destiny.
Thats not the America I know and love.
So yes, we have a lot of work to do to keep our country secure. And we need to do better by American families and American workers and we will. But dont let anyone tell you that America isnt great. Donald Trumps got America all wrong. We are a big-hearted, fair-minded country.
There is no challenge we cant meet, no goal we cant achieve when we each do our part and come together as one nation.
Every lesson from our history teaches us that we are stronger together. We remember that every Memorial Day.
This election is a choice between two very different visions of America.
One thats angry, afraid, and based on the idea that America is fundamentally weak and in decline.
The other is hopeful, generous, and confident in the knowledge that America is great just like we always have been.
Lets resolve that we can be greater still. That is what I believe in my heart.
I went to 112 countries as your Secretary of State. And I never lost my sense of pride at seeing our blue-and-white plane lit up on some far-off runway, with The United States of America emblazoned on the side. That plane those words our country represents something special, not just to us, to the world. It represents freedom and hope and opportunity.
I love this country and I know you do too. Its been an honor and a privilege to serve America and Im going to do everything I can to protect our nation, and make sure we dont lose sight of how strong we really are.
Thank you all very much.
But did it affect the race? Not really. The people who get purged from voter rolls are inactive voters people who havent voted in two straight elections and didnt return postcards seeking to verify their address. These are generally people who moved, or have died.
I just received my first postcard from the state of Washington last week. I assume Ill be moved to inactive status, since I was lazy and didnt respond, and then Ill eventually be removed.
So realistically, most of the people who were purged were not going to vote. They probably dont live in Brooklyn anymore.
1. The white share of the electorate is likely to fall about two percent in 2016. In 2012, Edison Research's national exit poll pegged the electorate at 72 percent white, 13 percent African-American, 10 percent Latino, and five percent Asian/Other. If the electorate changes in line with Census estimates for citizens of voting age, the 2016 electorate will be 70 percent white, 13 percent African-American, 11 percent Latino, and six percent Asian/Other.
2. Demographic shifts alone boost Democrats' national margin about 1.5 percent versus 2012.
3. Even among white voters, rising educational attainment means Republicans' core supporters are in decline. Republicans' demographic woes aren't limited to the rise of Latino and Asian voters. Over the last few decades, Democrats have done better and better with whites who hold college degrees (especially advanced degrees), while whites without a college degree have become a core element of the GOP coalition.
In 2012, each group accounted for 36 percent of the electorate. Obama carried 42 percent of white college graduates, but just 36 percent of non-college whites. In 2016, white college graduates will rise to 37 percent of the electorate. Unfortunately for Republicans, non-college whites - by far their best-performing cohort - are slated to fall three points to 33 percent as more college-educated millennials supplant conservative seniors who didn't attend college.
Clinton does not need over 600 pledged delegates beyond what she already has (1770). DNC rule states...
C. Order of Business
7. Roll Call for Presidential Candidate:
b. A majority vote of the Conventions delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate.
There are 4,765 pledged and unpledged delegates. The winner needs 2,383 delegates and it does not have to be all pledged delegates. Pledged and unpledged delegates are a subset of all delegates. Just as DNC members, Party Leaders, and congress members are a subset of the unpledged delegates. So it doesn't matter if unpledged delegates are part of the 2,383. If they all 2,383 had to be from the pledged delegates why would unpledged be needed????
And for those that say unpledged delegates don't count until the convention the same applies for pledged delegates. But before the convention we know how the pledged delegates will vote and we will also know how the unpledged delegates will vote or that are uncommitted per DNC rules.
There is no DNC rule that prohibits unpledged delegates from declaring their preference. Otherwise, the over 500 unpledged delegates that have already declared would be in violation. This is what Seth Abramson is saying over at Common Dreams. Facebook Link
There is a rule that states:
C. Presidential Preference:
Ten (10) days after the completion of the states delegate selection process, each states Democratic Chair shall certify in writing to the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee the presidential preference (including uncommitted) of the states delegates.
Lastly, I can almost hear the calls of "criminal Hillary" from a certain party who shall go nameless. Note, though, as the report mentions, there were no administrative penalties in placeeither about the use of a private email server, or not following the established procedures for preserving emailsat the time Clinton served as Secretary of State. Moreover, there is no indication that she was even aware of the requirements.
phein39 comment below
The hierarchy of wrongdoing goes something like this:
Willful and knowing disregard for Federal/State/Host Nation laws.
Violation of Federal/State/Host Nation laws.
Violation of Federal/State regulations.
Violation of policy.
Violation of policy not only isn't a crime (if they can't point to a statute, they're babbling), it's not even necessarily a bad thing. Policy is guidance that HQ gives to the field. The first thing any commander asks is, Can they hurt me?, and if they can't, they do what is best in their opinion to achieve the mission.
Violation of Departmental Regulations is not something where anyone outside the Department can hurt you, unless the Regulations are required by statute. In this case, I doubt that FISMA places any meaningful limits on actions of Department or Agency heads.
CFR Provision added: "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
In the 2014 amendments to the Federal Records Act, Congress added a provision prohibiting agency employees from creating or sending a record using a non-official electronic messaging account unless they copy their official electronic messaging account in the original creation or transmission of the record or forward a complete copy of the record to their official electronic messaging account within 20 days. Shortly before the enactment of the 2014 amendments, the Department issued an interim directive with similar requirements38 and subsequently updated the FAM in October 2015 as follows:
Under the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, employees are prohibited from creating or sending a record using a non-official email account unless the employee (1) copies the employees official email account in the original creation or transmission, or (2) forwards a complete copy of record (including any attachments) to the employees official email account not later than 20 days after the original creation or transmission .The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration has advised that personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business. However, in those very limited circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so, the email messages covering official business sent from or received in a personal account must be captured and managed in a Department email system in a manner described above in accordance with the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. If an employee has any emails (regardless of age) on his or her private email account(s) that have not already been forwarded to the employees official email account, then such emails need to be forwarded to the employees state.gov account as soon as possible. Employees are reminded that private email accounts should not be used to transmit or receive classified information.
The above in bold was being followed by Clinton before this even went into effect.
Limited Ability To Retrieve Email Records: Even when emails are printed and filed, they are generally not inventoried or indexed and are therefore difficult to retrieve. As an illustration, almost 3,000 boxes, each filled with hundreds of pages of documents, would have to be reviewed manually, on a page-by-page basis, in order to identify and review all printed and filed emails from the Office of the Secretary since 1997. To help alleviate this problem, the Office of the Secretary could have adopted an electronic email management system in 2009 with the introduction of SMART. SMART allows users to designate specific emails sent or received through the Departments email system as record emails; other SMART users can search for and access record emails, depending on the access controls set by the individual who originally saved the email. However, prior OIG reports have repeatedly found that Department employees enter relatively few of their emails into the SMART system and that compliance varies greatly across bureaus, in part because of perceptions by Department employees that SMART is not intuitive, is difficult to use, and has some technical problems.
To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues .
OIG identified emails sent from and received by Secretary Powells personal account in selected records associated with Secretary Powell. During his interview with OIG, Secretary Powell stated that he accessed the email account via his personal laptop computer in his office, while traveling, and at his residence, but not through a mobile device. His representative advised the Department that Secretary Powell did not retain those emails or make printed copies. Secretary Powell also stated that neither he nor his representatives took any specific measures to preserve Federal records in his email account. Secretary Powells representative told OIG that she asked Department staff responsible for recordkeeping whether they needed to do anything to preserve the Secretarys emails prior to his departure, though she could not recall the names or titles of these staff. According to the representative, the Department staff responded that the Secretarys emails would be captured on Department servers because the Secretary had emailed other Department employees.
***** : Now ---- After
Clinton : 32.7% -- 30.0%
Sanders: 67.5% -- 70.2%
Pledged Delegates Remaining (721)
Percent of All Delegates Needed
***** : Now ---- After
Clinton : 11.3% -- 7.6%
Sanders: 88.9% -- 92.6%
All Delegates Remaining (889) Does not include automatic delegates that have not publicly declared. There are about 20.
And they likely are not regularly involved in the Democratic Party. They are outsiders clamoring for members of an organization they are not a member to change their rules and leaders.
Check out the DNC Wikipedia
Notice how long DNC chairs tend to serve. I am not a fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And I look forward to her leaving but it can wait until they have their regular election to fill that and other positions which don't happen until next year.
The impact imo of the DNC during the general election is nothing compared to the Democratic nominee's campaign. The DNC acts as a subsidiary at that point.
By the way. Sanders continues to make enemies by making his outrageous statements when his status will be in doubt after the election.
Democrats Bury Purge Provision for Delegates -- 8 Nov 1981
In 1980, only 10 percent of the delegate slots were reserved for them, and they were required to pledge that their presidential votes would fall in line with the other delegates from their states.
Rep. Gillis W. Long (D-La.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that the reason only 37 House members served as delegates was that they did not want to choose between Carter and Kennedy and thereby align themselves with one faction at home.
He said the caucus wanted to choose two-thirds of its members as 1984 delegates--but only if they could go uncommitted, adding: "If they do not have that freedom, I assure you they will not participate."
A Brief History of Superdelegates -- Daily Kos 15 Feb 2008 -- Nate Silver wrote this under a pseudonym.
Democrats change nominating process -- 21 Jan 1982
There Is also a seldom-mentioned elitist aspect to the rationale. Thal Is that the party bigwigs have a bigger grip on political realities -on which candidate has the best chance to win against the Republican nominee. Offered as Exhibits A and B are the nominations of McGovern and Carter, neither of whom was the choice of the party backs, In 1972 or 1976.
Finally, there is the political scientists' argument that members of Congress who have had little or no choice in the nomination of a Democratic president and are not likely to have the optimum stake in bis success. and hence aren't likely to be true partners In pushing his legislative program. Again, Carter is the prime exhibit offered.
A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party Kennedy School of Government 1986
What does it mean to 'clinch the nomination' when superdelegates are involved? DailyKos
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Heres how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.
Second, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.
Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.
The method used to allocate delegates is fair and equitable.
The rules of the Democratic National Convention call for the following formula to be used in determining the allocation of delegate votes to each jurisdiction sending a delegation to the Convention.
Each jurisdiction with electoral votes is assigned a number of Base (delegate) votes based on an "Allocation Factor" multiplied by 3,200 [Call Rule I.B.] arrived at through a calculation involving the following factors:
State's Democratic Vote (SDV): The jurisdiction's popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012). Source: The vote totals for 2004 and 2008 below were obtained from FEC.gov on 24 November 2010. The vote totals for 2012 were taken from The Green Papers 2012 General Election Presidential Popular Vote and FEC Total Receipts by Party on 17 January 2013.
Total Democratic Vote (TDV): The total popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The state's Electoral Vote (SEV) averaged over the last three Presidential Elections (2004, 2008, and 2012).
The total Electoral Vote of all jurisdictions (538).
The formula for determining a jurisdiction's Allocation Factor is:
Allocation Factor = ½ × ( ( SDV ÷ TDV ) + ( SEV ÷ 538 ) )
The number of Base votes assigned to a state is Allocation Factor × 3,200 rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions 0.5 and above are rounded up).
To summarize, half of a jurisdiction's base vote is determined by the number of Presidential Electors assigned to that state and half are computed by the number of people who voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the last three elections.
States are and should be weighted. Why should a state like Texas receive more delegates than New York when Democratic turnout is lower?
TX * 26,059,203 * - * 9,669,461 * * * * 147
NY * 19,570,261 * - * 13,456,847 * * * *247
CA * 38,041,430 * - * 22,874,243 * * * *475
The delegates allocated to southern states were less than other states with comparable census population but had higher Democratic turnout. If a candidate is going to win the nomination weight should be given to states that are likely to turn blue.
If delegates were allocated based on census population Clinton's margin over Sanders would be larger than what it is now. Using 4,051 as the total delegates and the win/loss percent the delegate count would be roughly Clinton: 1,859 and Sanders: 1,482. A spread of 377 instead of the current 272 pledged delegate advantage that Clinton currently has.
She also won every state with a census population of 10 million or more with California still up.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 48,560