Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


LiberalFighter's Journal
LiberalFighter's Journal
April 29, 2016

Democratic - Republican Primary Vote Comparisons

Democratic Primary Popular Votes
2016: 21,708,003 * 12,255,888 (Clinton)
2012: 8,844,760 * 8,044,659 (Obama)
2008: 37,170,231 * 17,584,692 (Obama)
2004: 16,535,823 * 10,045,891 (Kerry)
2000: 14,013,416 * 10,642,105 (Gore)

Republican Primary Popular Votes
2016: 25,535,872 * 10,125,402 (Trump)
2012: 19,272,346 * 10,048,134 (Romney)
2008: 20,613,585 * 9,615,533 (McCain)
2004: 8,008,070 * 7,853,863 (Bush)
2000: 19,519,539 * 12,089,564 (Bush)

== First column of votes consist of totals of all candidates in primary ==

Information courtesy of The Green Papers
April 29, 2016

Indiana Primary and History

Clinton did win Indiana 38-34 in 2008. The reason why I expect(ed) Indiana to go Sanders is because we have an open primary. But, Hillary has won more open primaries than Sanders.

Recent poll from 538 shows average of 48.8 - 41 favoring Clinton.

Indiana's polling hours are 6am to 6pm. That might be a factor too.

ANOTHER bit of information. Indiana only had 72 delegates in 2008. But because of the formula that the DNC uses to determine delegate allocation Indiana will have 83 delegates this year. In 2012 they had 96 delegates. The reason for the fluctuation is due to voter turnout for a Democratic candidate over a 3 election cycle.

Below shows the allocation of delegates in this election and the past 3. Allocation of delegates by Democratic voter turnout during those years is also at the congressional district level. This reflects how a weighting factor may give a state with comparable population a different delegate count.

Obama won Indiana in the 2008 general election which is the reason for the jump in delegates in 2012.

District * 2004 * 2008 * 2012 * 2016
CD1 -- - -- 6 -- -- 6 -- -- 10 -- -- 8
CD2 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD3 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD4 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD5 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 7
CD6 -- - -- 5 -- -- 5 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD7 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 8 -- -- 8
CD8 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD9 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
AtLarge -- 15 --- 16 ----- 11 -- -- 9
PLEO --- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 22 -- - 18
Delegates -67 --- 72 -- -- 96 -- - 83

April 28, 2016

Indiana should be roughly a 45 - 38 split for Clinton -- Net 7 delegates.

Based on current data it should result in delegates as follows:

Clinton: 1,709
Sanders: 1,409
Spread: 300

Remaining Delegates: 933

Based on supposed Bernie Math that states the nominee must have the majority of combined pledged and unpledged delegates using just pledged delegates the following:

Needed pledged delegates:
Clinton: 674
Sanders: 974

Needed percent of pledged delegates:
Clinton: 72.2%
Sanders: 104.4%
April 27, 2016

Data worth knowing

States Won
Closed Primaries -- Clinton: 9 -- Sanders: 0
Open Primaries -- Clinton: 9 -- Sanders: 3
Modified Primaries -- Clinton: 3 -- Sanders: 3

Closed Caucuses -- Clinton: 3 -- Sanders: 5
Open Caucuses -- Clinton: 1 -- Sanders: 4

Electoral Votes
All States Allocated -- Clinton: 312 -- Sanders: 97
States Obama 2008 -- Clinton: 188 -- Sanders: 71

Automatic [Super] Delegates
Allocated Winner Take All State -- Clinton: 374 -- Sanders: 143
Current -- Clinton: 483 -- Sanders: 40 -- O'Malley: 1

Delegates (Subject to Official Results Submitted)
Pledged -- Clinton: 1664 -- Sanders: 1371
All Delegates -- Clinton: 2147 -- Sanders: 1411

Pledged Needed -- Clinton: 362 (35.6%) -- Sanders: 655 (64.5%)
All Needed -- Clinton: 236 (9.9%) -- Sanders: 972 (40.8%)

The official number of delegates if all delegates are living and show up at the convention is 4,765. The nominee needs to receive a majority of all delegates which are Pledged and Automatic combined. It takes 2,383 to reach the majority. It can be any combination of both Pledged and Automatic. It is not 2,383 of just Pledged delegates as the opposition try to argue.

States with higher turnout than 2008
Illinois -- 2008: 2,038,614 --- 2016: 2,039,049 -- Increase of 435 votes.
Michigan* -- 2008: 594,398 --- 2016: 1,169,075 -- Increase of 574,677.

There were no other states with a higher turnout.

* Obama and other Democrats removed their name from the ballot due to Michigan not following the rules.

April 21, 2016

VIII. Procedural Rules of the 2016 Democratic National Convention

C. Order of Business: The order of business for the Democratic National Convention shall be as provided in these rules and in any special order of business adopted under Section D. of these rules. The Chair of the Convention may, at appropriate times, interrupt the order of business provided for in these rules for introductions, announcements, addresses, presentations, resolutions of tribute and appreciation, or remarks appropriate to the business of the Convention.

7. Roll Call for Presidential Candidate:

a. After nominations for presidential candidates have closed, the Convention shall proceed to a roll call vote by states on the selection of the presidential candidate. The roll call voting shall follow the alphabetical order of the states with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the territories treated as states for the purpose of the alphabetical roll call.

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

c. Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Any vote cast other than a vote for a presidential candidate meeting the requirements of Article VI of this Call and Rule 12.K. of the 2016 Delegate Selection Rules shall be considered a vote for “Present.”

d. Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected. Upon selection, balloting may be temporarily suspended, provided that the balloting shall continue at a time certain determined by the Convention Chair, until all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories shall publically deliver their vote prior to the nominee’s acceptance speech. The nominee shall become the candidate of the Democratic Party of the United States for the Office of President upon the conclusion of his or her acceptance speech.

Pledged and Unpledged Delegates are considered a subset of all delegates.
I. Distribution of Delegate Votes
The distribution of votes, delegates and alternates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention shall be in accordance with the following:

A. The number of Convention votes for delegates to the Convention shall be as set forth in the compilation included in this resolution and determined as provided in paragraphs B, C, D, E, F, G, and H1.

B. A base of 3,200 delegate votes is distributed among the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to a formula giving equal weight to the sum of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the three (3) most recent presidential elections and to population by electoral vote. The formula is expressed mathematically as follows:

F. Unpledged votes shall be allocated to each delegation to accommodate the members of the Democratic National Committee from that state or territory in which they legally reside. The size of such a member’s vote (i.e., whole or fractional) shall be the same size as that which he or she is allowed to cast at meetings of the Democratic National Committee. Additional unpledged delegates shall be allocated for other officers serving in three (3) positions created by the Democratic National Committee in accordance with Article 3, Section 1.e. of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States.

G. Unpledged votes shall be allocated to provide for the Democratic President, the Democratic Vice President, and all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the United States Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the United States House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairpersons of the Democratic National Committee. Such delegates shall be seated with the state delegations from the state in which they have their voting residences.
April 21, 2016

Automatic Delegates (misnamed as superdelegates)

The media, Sanders and supporters push the narrative that automatic delegates are elected officials. That is not entirely true. Only 36.5% of them are delegates because they are either a Governor, Senator, or Representative. A total of 261 are in that category.

The remaining 454 (63.5%) are either Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) or DNC members. 20 are DPL and 434 are DNC members.

DPL consist of current and former presidents, vice presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs.

100 of the DNC members consist of state party chairs and an executive state party member of the opposite gender from each state. The remaining 334 are activists within the Democratic Party. They are elected either by delegates at state conventions or at state central meetings. They come from various backgrounds. About 65 of them are also elected officials from various levels that include city, county, and state. DNC members in many cases represent a geographical area. If they are one of the 65 they have two constituencies. Those as an elected official and the area they serve in their DNC capacity.

BTW despite what others say the Republican Party also has superdelegates. The media and others just want to pick on the Democratic Party.

April 20, 2016

The Green Papers (Current Delegate Count)

Updated 10:53 pm

Clinton: 138
Sanders: 109

1,432,399 votes

Note: 6 districts split delegates 3-3 even though Clinton had more votes.
Updated 10:02 pm

Clinton: 137
Sanders: 104

858,047 votes
26 districts reported
District 4 not reported

Updated 9:46 pm

Clinton: 137
Sanders: 104

752,268 votes
22 districts reported

Updated 9:38 pm

Clinton: 126
Sanders: 90

448,660 votes
26 districts reported

Subject to change.

Clinton: 107
Sanders: 62

60,796 votes in
14 districts reported

April 19, 2016

No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008)

Gotham Gazette January 28, 2008 | by Andrea Senteno

The Question of Constitutionality

In the 1970s a group of New Yorkers prohibited from voting in party primaries because they missed the date for switching parties challenged the New York deadline, which was then the same as it is now. They argued that the timeframe was unconstitutional because it restricted their inherent rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to affiliate with the party of their choosing.

Two lower courts ruled in Rosario v. Rockefeller that the New York's enrollment deadline was unconstitutional. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four split, overturned the decision and upheld New York's primary procedures. The state's policies did not absolutely disenfranchise voters, said the Supreme Court, they merely put in place a time restriction in relation to party affiliation.
April 18, 2016

The Most Exciting Attack On Partisan Gerrymandering In Over A Decade


The “Efficiency Gap”

Stephanopoulos and McGhee’s central insight is that gerrymanders operate by forcing the disadvantaged party to “waste” votes. Some voters are shunted into districts where their party’s candidate has no chance of winning, a process known as “cracking.” Others are crammed into districts that so overwhelmingly favor their party’s candidate that casting an additional ballot for that candidate merely adds padding to a foregone conclusion, a process known as “packing.” “A gerrymander,” Stephanopoulos and McGhee write, “is simply a district plan that results in one party wasting many more votes than its adversary.”

To sniff out possibly gerrymanders, Stephanopoulos and McGhee begin by counting each party’s “wasted” votes. As the three-judge panel hearing the Whitford case explained in a recent opinion, a wasted vote occurs when a voter either casts a ballot “for a candidate who lost the election” (suggesting that the voter was targeted by cracking), or if they cast a ballot “for the winning candidate, but in excess of what the candidate needed to win” (suggesting that the voter was packed).

As Stephanopoulos and McGhee note, some number of wasted votes are inevitable in elections involving single-member districts. But a fair map should produce roughly equal numbers of wasted votes for both parties. To determine which maps diverge too far from the ideal, the two scholars offer a metric they call the “efficiency gap,” which is calculated by taking the difference of the two parties’ wasted votes and then dividing it by the total number of votes cast. The plaintiffs in Whitford (speaking through a team of lawyers that includes Stephanopoulos) offer an example of how to calculate this figure in their complaint:

Suppose, for example, that there are five districts in a plan with 100 voters each. Suppose also that Party A wins three of the districts by a margin of 60 votes to 40, and that Party B wins two of them by a margin of 80 votes to 20. Then Party A wastes 10 votes in each of the three districts it wins and 20 votes in each of the two districts it loses, adding up to 70 wasted votes. Likewise, Party B wastes 30 votes in each of the two districts it wins and 40 votes in each of the three districts it loses, adding up to 180 wasted votes. The difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes is 110, which, when divided by 500 total votes, yields an efficiency gap of 22% in favor of Party A.

An efficiency gap of more than 7 percent, these plaintiffs claim, is indicative of a partisan gerrymander. When combined with evidence that the state acted intentionally to give one party an advantage, they argue that courts should presume that a map that produces such a high efficiency gap is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
April 18, 2016

It is a Democratic Party Primary...

Not a "Anybody Party Primary".

If they don't want to be associated with the Democratic Party then they should not be deciding the nominee.

49.1% Democrats
23.8% Republicans
01.4% Conservative
00.2% Green Party
00.4% Working Families
04.0% Independence
00.0%+ Women's Eqaulity
00.0%+ Reform Party
00.0%+ Other
20.9% No Party Specified

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Wisconsin
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 48,560

About LiberalFighter

Member since 3/21/2002. I have been interested in politics since the early 70's. I registered to vote by riding my bicycle to the nearest registration site while still in high school. The first time I voted was with my parents. By the general election, I was in college and voted absentee. During the Watergate hearing I was in college and watched the hearings. I have only voted for a Republican once. And it was due to the endorsement of the local union's political group. It was for the position of the county sheriff. I have never missed voting in an election. Both primary and general. I have voted in at least 69 elections. Political Science and History was my focus in college. I became more involved in politics in 1987 with the mayor's campaign helping at headquarters. It was at this time that I became a precinct committee person. In a couple of years I was involved in setting up the database for a congressional campaign due to Quayle becoming VP and Dan Coats was appointed as Quayle's replacement. I have attended many Democratic State Conventions and other Democratic fundraisers and events.

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»LiberalFighter's Journal