• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Clinton Delegate Lead over Sanders Down to 194

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So after all those wins in caucus races Bernie is still almost 200 delegates behind? LOL You Bernie busters are grasping at straws.
 

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As the caucus delegates battle it out at local and state conventions Bernie makes gains.
Bernie Sanders is going to be crushed in New York unfortunately. CNN did their level best to stop Sanders by not bringing up the Panama Papers and Hillary's support for Free Trade deals with Panama. CNN also aimed their salvos at Sanders re: gun control. And Sander's failure to bring up Hillary's support for TPP and Keystone didn't do him any favors. I expect Hillary to get 60%+ in New York.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
11,934
Reaction score
3,998
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bernie Sanders is going to be crushed in New York unfortunately. CNN did their level best to stop Sanders by not bringing up the Panama Papers and Hillary's support for Free Trade deals with Panama. CNN also aimed their salvos at Sanders re: gun control. And Sander's failure to bring up Hillary's support for TPP and Keystone didn't do him any favors. I expect Hillary to get 60%+ in New York.

That makes no sense considering most recent polls show him a mere 10 points behind, and currently beating her in Upstate NY.

So why are most American news-watchers under the distinct impression that Ted Cruz has a much better chance of catching Trump in pledged delegates than Sanders does of catching Clinton?

^Answer: Because the mainstream media is bull****. Bernie is stomping.
 

robertblake60

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
370
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
As the caucus delegates battle it out at local and state conventions Bernie makes gains.


Just out of curiosity....

a) I've heard it argued that superdelegates should vote along the lines of voters in their state. i.e. if the state has 10 superdelegates and the state went 80% for Bernie, that 8 superdelegates should vote for Bernie regardless of their loyalty to Clinton. Voters come first!!

b) What you're happy about with this post, are pledged delegates, who most directly represent the votes of the people, NOT representing the votes of the state and instead just voting for Sanders regardless of their pledge to Hillary's voters.


Am I missing something?
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
64,620
Reaction score
31,565
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Just out of curiosity....

a) I've heard it argued that superdelegates should vote along the lines of voters in their state. i.e. if the state has 10 superdelegates and the state went 80% for Bernie, that 8 superdelegates should vote for Bernie regardless of their loyalty to Clinton. Voters come first!!

b) What you're happy about with this post, are pledged delegates, who most directly represent the votes of the people, NOT representing the votes of the state and instead just voting for Sanders regardless of their pledge to Hillary's voters.


Am I missing something?

I'm not paying attention to superdelegates. They will vote with the will of the pledged delegates.
 

robertblake60

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
370
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm not paying attention to superdelegates. They will vote with the will of the pledged delegates.

Ok fine....but you're ok with the pledged delegates not voting with the will of the voters?
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,357
Reaction score
8,099
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not paying attention to superdelegates. They will vote with the will of the pledged delegates.

Superdelegates are intended to make sure Wasserman's choice is nominated.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
11,934
Reaction score
3,998
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Clinton's lead is back up to 227.

After New York:
- Clinton: 1,438
- Sanders: 1,211

Still not "unsurmountable", mind you, and still doesn't come close to the lead she previously had before Bernie's Western Saturday/Tuesday sweep.

It isn't over till it's over. There's still 2,000-odd delegates at large, and California alone has 571.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Clinton's lead is back up to 227.

After New York:
- Clinton: 1,438
- Sanders: 1,211

Still not "unsurmountable", mind you, and still doesn't come close to the lead she previously had before Bernie's Western Saturday/Tuesday sweep.

It isn't over till it's over.
Here's hopin' it ain't over.
 

robertblake60

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
370
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Where do you see this happening?

Are you serious? You posted the article where I got the infomation. How else do you think he got down to a 194 delegate deficit when no more votes had been cast???







From a link within that article (Bernie Sanders' Unusual Strategy to Win More Pledged Delegates | Rolling Stone). I had to edit out some sections to meet the 5000 character limit.

Nevada was a relatively disappointing night for the Sanders campaign; he lost by more than five points, taking home 15 delegates to Clinton's 20. What most people watching the returns at home didn't realize, though, is that those numbers aren't final until the state convention almost three months later — and a lot can happen in that amount of time.

The convention in Nevada's most populous county was the first successful example of the Sanders campaign's strategy to flip pledged delegates at county and state conventions as the race wears on. Rolling Stone's Mark Binelli spoke about this tack with Sanders senior advisor Tad Devine for a piece published in early March:

"Devine went on to sketch out a Sanders path to victory, ...at one point, he even suggested that pledged delegates — that is, the delegates won at the voting booth — might switch to Sanders if Clinton stumbled badly, an oddly undemocratic pitch from a campaign focused on the rights of the little guy."

The volunteers' efforts to turn out delegates and, crucially, alternates to take the place of delegates who failed show up, helped tighten the race. Only 3,825 of 9,000 delegates elected at the caucuses on February 20th showed up to the county convention. When alternates were factored in (915 elected, 604 unelected), the delegates broke 2,964 for Sanders, and 2,386 for Clinton.

The Sanders campaign is hopeful it will pick up even more delegates there — Littman and his colleagues already have the BernieDialer fired up to ensure their people turn out again — but Nevada State Democratic chair Roberta Lange thinks it's going to be tough for the campaign to move the needle any further in the state.

"Nothing's impossible. [But] it would be very difficult," Lange says. "The people that are coming to the state convention are people that have gone from the caucus to the county and now to the state — they're your most dedicated supporters, and the likelihood of someone not showing up…. I mean, it's possible, but I don't think likely."
 

robertblake60

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
370
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Clinton's lead is back up to 227.

After New York:
- Clinton: 1,438
- Sanders: 1,211

Still not "unsurmountable", mind you, and still doesn't come close to the lead she previously had before Bernie's Western Saturday/Tuesday sweep.

It isn't over till it's over. There's still 2,000-odd delegates at large, and California alone has 571.



1) She was at 110% of her delegate target needed to win the majority of pledged delegates. She's now at 108% of what she needs. That's pretty damn close!!

2) It completely insurmountable if you at all care about the likelihood of it happening. Sanders has to win 59% of the remaining delegates. It's NOT going to happen.

3) On 4/26 there are 384 delegates up for grabs; Hillary is poised to get around 210 of those based on a conservative estimates of current polling (which after the blow out in NY, should even go more in her favor). Which would then require Sanders to receive 63% of the remaining delegates AFTER next Tuesday's results.

4) California has 475 delegates, not 571.

5) There are 1400 delegates left at large.
 
Last edited:

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
64,620
Reaction score
31,565
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Are you serious? You posted the article where I got the infomation. How else do you think he got down to a 194 delegate deficit when no more votes had been cast???







From a link within that article (Bernie Sanders' Unusual Strategy to Win More Pledged Delegates | Rolling Stone). I had to edit out some sections to meet the 5000 character limit.

Nevada was a relatively disappointing night for the Sanders campaign; he lost by more than five points, taking home 15 delegates to Clinton's 20. What most people watching the returns at home didn't realize, though, is that those numbers aren't final until the state convention almost three months later — and a lot can happen in that amount of time.

The convention in Nevada's most populous county was the first successful example of the Sanders campaign's strategy to flip pledged delegates at county and state conventions as the race wears on. Rolling Stone's Mark Binelli spoke about this tack with Sanders senior advisor Tad Devine for a piece published in early March:

"Devine went on to sketch out a Sanders path to victory, ...at one point, he even suggested that pledged delegates — that is, the delegates won at the voting booth — might switch to Sanders if Clinton stumbled badly, an oddly undemocratic pitch from a campaign focused on the rights of the little guy."

The volunteers' efforts to turn out delegates and, crucially, alternates to take the place of delegates who failed show up, helped tighten the race. Only 3,825 of 9,000 delegates elected at the caucuses on February 20th showed up to the county convention. When alternates were factored in (915 elected, 604 unelected), the delegates broke 2,964 for Sanders, and 2,386 for Clinton.

The Sanders campaign is hopeful it will pick up even more delegates there — Littman and his colleagues already have the BernieDialer fired up to ensure their people turn out again — but Nevada State Democratic chair Roberta Lange thinks it's going to be tough for the campaign to move the needle any further in the state.

"Nothing's impossible. [But] it would be very difficult," Lange says. "The people that are coming to the state convention are people that have gone from the caucus to the county and now to the state — they're your most dedicated supporters, and the likelihood of someone not showing up…. I mean, it's possible, but I don't think likely."

I see what you are saying. You are talking about the caucuses where there are local conventions that then lead up to state conventions. That's not a matter of delegates not voting with the will of the people. That's about delegates not showing up to vote for their candidate. And no... I'm not a fan of that kind of system. It's silly and shouldn't be. Caucuses are proving to be only effective at turning people away from participating in the electoral process.

I'm also not a fan of closed primaries and definitely not a fan of early registration deadlines. There's a lot that can be done in most states to invite people into the process that are currently blocked.
 
Last edited:

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
56,773
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
if we're to accept a gerrymandered two party system (and i don't,) it's simply unacceptable that so many of our primary votes don't even count, and that states are allowed to screw with primaries so that there's another bottleneck in which supporters of a candidate aren't even allowed to vote in that primary if they don't jump through a bunch of hoops. my compromise solution :

a national primary day in which anyone can vote for one party's nominee without formerly declaring allegiance to that party. this would have to be mandated federally.

my preference :

no political parties. run on your ideas. but still, national primary day would be included in my preferred solution. if we can pick the president in one day, we can also pick the nominees within that timeframe.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
11,934
Reaction score
3,998
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
1) She was at 110% of her delegate target needed to win the majority of pledged delegates. She's now at 108% of what she needs. That's pretty damn close!!

2) It completely insurmountable if you at all care about the likelihood of it happening. Sanders has to win 59% of the remaining delegates. It's NOT going to happen.

3) On 4/26 there are 384 delegates up for grabs; Hillary is poised to get around 210 of those based on a conservative estimates of current polling (which after the blow out in NY, should even go more in her favor). Which would then require Sanders to receive 63% of the remaining delegates AFTER next Tuesday's results.

4) California has 475 delegates, not 571.

5) There are 1400 delegates left at large.

1) Still a downturn.
2) Opinion noted.
3) Prediction noted.
4) Ok. And?
5) Ok. And?
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,592
Reaction score
12,833
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
it's simply unacceptable that so many of our primary votes don't even count, and that states are allowed to screw with primaries so that there's another bottleneck in which supporters of a candidate aren't even allowed to vote in that primary if they don't jump through a bunch of hoops.

Are you talking about those states that require those making decisions for an organization to actually be members of that organization?
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
64,620
Reaction score
31,565
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Are you talking about those states that require those making decisions for an organization to actually be members of that organization?

Do you actually support your candidate or just spend all your time slamming your candidate's opponent?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
56,773
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are you talking about those states that require those making decisions for an organization to actually be members of that organization?

i'm saying that if our choices are to be artificially limited to two, then anyone of voting age should be able to pick a primary on election day and vote in that primary, including independents. declaring an allegiance to one of the two parties six months in advance is an unnecessary obstacle, and that obstacle should be removed nationwide.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,592
Reaction score
12,833
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
i'm saying that if our choices are to be artificially limited to two, then anyone of voting age should be able to pick a primary on election day and vote in that primary, including independents. declaring an allegiance to one of the two parties six months in advance is an unnecessary obstacle, and that obstacle should be removed nationwide.

Our choices aren't artificially limited, they're limited by logic (Duverger's law). You can have multi-candidate races, the problem is that when that happens the majority almost invariably loses because its preferences--and votes--are spread across candidates.

I voted for a competitive third party candidate in a gubernatorial election six years ago; he came in second, by a hair. He and the third-place finisher (the Democratic candidate) were obviously on the same side of the political spectrum, a side that broadly matched the preferences of the state's electorate. But since they both ran, the winner of the election was a Tea Party wackjob who skated by with less than 38% of the vote. The left lost, despite the fact that the majority of the state's voters in that election tilted left.

That's exactly why like-minded people organize and consolidate. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's logic and pragmatism to advance common interests. It's why the Democrats didn't run anyone in Bernie's Senate races as an Independent, and it's why Bernie is running in the Democratic primary now. Well, one of the reasons. He's also admitted that he joined the party because he needed its infrastructure, which is exactly what parties provide to candidates aligned with their agendas.

If states want to make their primaries open, that's fine. But I don't know why it should be assumed you should have some right to have a say in who the Democratic (or Republican) party chooses to represent it if you don't want to be a member of that party. People organize for a reason; join or don't, but putting forth a world without organization as the utopian ideal doesn't make sense in our electoral system.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
56,773
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Our choices aren't artificially limited, they're limited by logic (Duverger's law). You can have multi-candidate races, the problem is that when that happens the majority almost invariably loses because its preferences--and votes--are spread across candidates.

I voted for a competitive third party candidate in a gubernatorial election six years ago; he came in second, by a hair. He and the third-place finisher (the Democratic candidate) were obviously on the same side of the political spectrum, a side that broadly matched the preferences of the state's electorate. But since they both ran, the winner of the election was a Tea Party wackjob who skated by with less than 38% of the vote. The left lost, despite the fact that the majority of the state's voters in that election tilted left.

That's exactly why like-minded people organize and consolidate. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's logic and pragmatism to advance common interests. It's why the Democrats didn't run anyone in Bernie's Senate races as an Independent, and it's why Bernie is running in the Democratic primary now. Well, one of the reasons. He's also admitted that he joined the party because he needed its infrastructure, which is exactly what parties provide to candidates aligned with their agendas.

If states want to make their primaries open, that's fine. But I don't know why it should be assumed you should have some right to have a say in who the Democratic (or Republican) party chooses to represent it if you don't want to be a member of that party. People organize for a reason; join or don't, but putting forth a world without organization as the utopian ideal doesn't make sense in our electoral system.

the two political parties have gerrymandered themselves into power and have manipulated the tribal leanings of the electorate to a point in which they have become almost unchallengeable. everyone has a right for his or her primary vote to count, and everyone should also be able to easily vote in whichever artificially limited primary that he or she chooses to participate in. declaring intent six months out is just one more unnecessary hurdle designed to limit the influence of those who don't identify with a tribe.

this time around, the duopoly has given us two candidates, as it always does. one was preordained for coronation since she declared her candidacy, and the other is unfit for office and essentially unelectable. both have the highest negatives of any candidate who entered the race. if that doesn't demonstrate the failure of our duopoly to you, i'm not sure what possibly could.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,592
Reaction score
12,833
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
the two political parties have gerrymandered themselves into power and have manipulated the tribal leanings of the electorate to a point in which they have become almost unchallengeable.

I don't know what "gerrymandered" means in the context of a presidential election.

this time around, the duopoly has given us two candidates, as it always does. one was preordained for coronation since she declared her candidacy, and the other is unfit for office and essentially unelectable. both have the highest negatives of any candidate who entered the race. if that doesn't demonstrate the failure of our duopoly to you, i'm not sure what possibly could.

What are you arguing here? That if every primary and caucus were open then Hillary and Trump wouldn't be winning? The facts don't seem to bear that out.

2rqy2c2.png
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
56,773
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know what "gerrymandered" means in the context of a presidential election.

really?

What are you arguing here? That if every primary and caucus were open then Hillary and Trump wouldn't be winning? The facts don't seem to bear that out.

2rqy2c2.png

with the artificially limited choices, maybe they would. however, i see no reason to put another obstacle in the way of voters.

New York's strict voter registration rules frustrate Sanders supporters | US news | The Guardian
 
Top Bottom