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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stuckinthebush

(10,845 posts)
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:45 AM Feb 2016

Super super super

Ah, the Superdelegates. Nate Silver had a (poorly titled) piece on Friday about this. I don't know if it was linked in GD-P but I'm sure it was given the title.

Superdelegates Might Not Save Hillary Clinton: But they could tip the balance to her in a close race.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/

Back to bad news for Sanders supporters: Clinton begins with a far larger superdelegate lead over Sanders than she ever had over Obama. It’s easy to imagine why they might resist switching, furthermore. Unlike Obama, who was perhaps roughly as “electable” as Clinton, Sanders is a 74-year-old self-described socialist. Unlike Obama, who had the chance to become the first black president, Sanders is another old white guy (although he would be the first Jewish president). Sanders wasn’t even officially a Democrat until last year. I’m not saying these are necessarily great arguments, but they’re the sorts of arguments that Clinton-supporting superdelegates will make to themselves and one another, in part because the superdelegate system was created precisely to help nominate candidates considered more electable by party leaders.

But how close would the outcome have to be for superdelegates to tip the nomination to Clinton? You can find that calculation in the table below.

[IMG][/IMG]

Superdelegates are mathematically relevant when a candidate has 41.2 percent to 58.8 percent of elected delegates. Below that range, a candidate couldn’t win a first-ballot majority even with the votes of every superdelegate; above that range, the superdelegates’ help wouldn’t be necessary to clinch the nomination.



We all know that Clinton will have a much larger percent of the elected delegates than 50%. Sanders can not possibly win this race.
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Super super super (Original Post) Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 OP
Thank you for posting this! pandr32 Feb 2016 #1
You are welcome! Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #3
"How far can Superdelegates get you?" Good info. Thanks, Stuck. :) Hortensis Feb 2016 #2
It is good, isn't it? Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #4
Democratic leaders generally prefer a Democrat. OhZone Feb 2016 #5
Yes, indeed! Stuckinthebush Feb 2016 #6
I doubt he will. I am beginning to feel very used - OhZone Feb 2016 #7
LOL. You know a putsch is planned in which "New Democrats" will take over Hortensis Feb 2016 #8
Yup shenmue Feb 2016 #9
Cool! Treant Feb 2016 #10
Sigh. We'll end up right where we are, of course. Sadly, Hortensis Feb 2016 #11
+1 Treant Feb 2016 #12
THAT would make an ace of a televised debate question! n/t fleabiscuit Feb 2016 #13

OhZone

(3,212 posts)
5. Democratic leaders generally prefer a Democrat.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:00 PM
Feb 2016

Especially one that's been working for the party for decades.


Oh well.

Stuckinthebush

(10,845 posts)
6. Yes, indeed!
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:02 PM
Feb 2016

This silly "horse race" meme by Sanders supporters doesn't take into account that the Democrats kind of want a Democrat to be their nominee.

Has anyone asked Bernie if he will vow to switch his (I) to a (D) even if he loses? I'm quite sure he will say, "no".

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
8. LOL. You know a putsch is planned in which "New Democrats" will take over
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:20 PM
Feb 2016

the Democratic Party, of course. This was explained to us just the other day. After the being used comes the being cleansed. They'll elect Bernie, then grab control and purge the party of our kind. Our day is over.

Treant

(1,968 posts)
10. Cool!
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:42 PM
Feb 2016

Post purging, what do they do for votes, though? It'll be a severely shrunken party and we'll be somewhere else.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
11. Sigh. We'll end up right where we are, of course. Sadly,
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:15 PM
Feb 2016

since there are too few of them and they're too dysfunctionally radical to succeed on their own, as they always have been, I am afraid most will stay tied to us too. Their passion seems to be inextricably negative and hostile, and they will always need to manufacture hopelessly evil and corrupt liberals and other Democrats to feed it.

I've given up wondering why all the evil and corruption perpetrated by the right doesn't draw their focus. It just doesn't.

WE are their problem. They seem to want to be us, but not us. But they never have been, never can be, can never understand why not not when they are so superior, and that just apparently perennially burns their butts.

Treant

(1,968 posts)
12. +1
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:24 PM
Feb 2016

You'd think they'd just go form their own party and they can be as negative and hostile as they want there. But it's no fun to be negative and hostile unless you're directing it at somebody.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Super super super