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.
Sub Total: 635,093
Grand Total: 640,630
Sub Total: 591,012
Grand Total: 601,646
Sanders would like to think Oregon is a state that looks like the Democratic Party. Except it isn't. It deviates from the Democratic electorate by a factor of 42 with zero being New Jersey.
Sanders has won every state with 78% or more white population except for Iowa, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Clinton has won every state with 15% or more black population except for Michigan. New Jersey and District of Columbia are in that range.
Clinton has won every state with 19% or more Hispanic/Latino. New Mexico and California are in that range.
There were more automatic delegates in 2008 (852 delegates).
Those 852 delegates were 19.2% of the total 2008 delegates compared to 14.9% in 2016.
There were only 3,566 pledged delegates in 2008. That is 485 fewer than in 2016.
Group -- 2008 -- 2016
DNC - -- 428 -- - 434
DPL - - -- 21 -- -- 20
Senate -- 51 -- -- 47
House -- 239 -- - 193
Govs - - - 32 -- -- 21
Adds - - - 81 -- - - 0
Totals -- 852 -- - 715
The odds were more against Obama in 2008 compared to Sanders in 2016.
The problem with them is they don't want to follow the rules or even the law. Because it stands in the way for Sanders to win.
It appears that they think the rules and laws is why the Democratic Party is rigged. Better yet, they appear to think that they should be exempt from the rules and laws while everyone that doesn't support them should continue to follow them.
So in effect, they want to rig it so that it favors them instead of everyone having to follow the same rules and laws to ensure fairness.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 48,560