Some people don't like dealing with math and facts - but I do

[CajunBlazer]

Here is the math - plain and simple:

Total delegates (pledged and super) = 4763

Delegates needed to win (half the delegates, rounded up) = 2382

Delegates "won" (pledged delegates won - super delegates promised) =
Clinton 1606 + Sanders 813 = 2419

Delegates still available (pledged and super) =
total delegates - delegates "won" = 4763 - 2419 = 2344

Clinton delegates "won" (pledged and super) = 1606

Clinton delegates still needed to cinch nomination =
Delegate needed to win - Clinton delegates "won" = 2383 - 1606 = 776

Clinton - percentage or remaining delegates required to cinch nomination =
Delegate needed to cinch / delegates remaining = 776/2344 = 33.1%

Sanders delegates "won" (pledged and super) = 813

Sanders delegates still needed to cinch nomination =
Delegate needed to win - Sanders delegates "won" = 2383 - 813 = 1570

Sanders - percentage or remaining delegates required to cinch nomination =
Delegate needed to cinch / delegates remaining = 1570/2344 = 66.9%

[onehandle]

1. Math has a liberal bias. nt

[CajunBlazer]

3. LOL! Evidently not liberal enough.

[merrily]

4. Actually, math is politically neutral. Truth, however, has a liberal "bias."

[workinclasszero]

27. It does!

[bkkyosemite]

2. Boy you guys want this over now...Not happening.

[CajunBlazer]

6. Do you have a problem with math and facts....

....because that's all I presented. Anything else is simple your interpretation of the facts.

[artislife]

9. Take your math and facts and now apply them to republican turnout

Yeah.

Say hello to President Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

17. Far more than half of the Republican turnout has been to vote against Trump

He has very high negative ratings among Republicans. Many establishment Republicans will not support him. Exit polls at Republican primaries and caucuses indicate that one out of four Republican voters will not vote for him in the GE or they will cross over and vote Democratic. That's how much they hate trump.

Democrats in the fastest growing demographics, blacks, Hispanics, and single women will vote for Hillary almost unanimously. Polls indicate that young people, many of whom voted for Sanders in the primaries, will vote for Hillary and against Trump by huge percentages in the general election.

Consequently I am not the least bit worried about the general election, especially if Trump is the Republican nominee. I am looking forward to Trump's nomination. He will will be excellent for turning out Democrats to vote.

[onenote]

31. Except there is no demonstrable correlation between primary turnout and general election results.

If there was, it would have been "hello, President Carter" in 1980 and "hello, President Dukakis" in 1988.

Sometimes the party with higher primary turnout wins the General and sometimes they lose. And sometimes, they do both, as in 2000, when the repubs had higher primary turnout than the Democrats, the Democrats still won the popular vote in the General, and thanks to the Supreme Court, Bush ended up as president.

[Octafish]

5. How are you with ideas, like ''Democracy''?

You know, talking about the issues, rather than the horse race?

[CajunBlazer]

10. I be more than happy to discuss issues...

...but from a foundation of facts and not just opinions. The math is an exact summery of how good a job the two candidates have done in presenting the issues to date and how well they need to do presenting those issues going forward to win.

I love discussion issues. You and I could discuss issues forever because we would be comparing our opinions which can be the basis of endless arguments. However, in the final analysis, it is the candidate who ultimately who has done the best job dealing with the issues who will win. Again, that is a matter of fact, not opinion.

[enlightenment]

13. Presumptions abound in your fact based calculation.

At this point, many states delegates are non binding votes - they can change their votes, generally up to the point of the state convention. That makes them presumptive possibilities, not quantifiable numbers to crunch.

Super delegates are definitely non-binding and that stands until they cast their votes at the national convention. Assuming that they will vote one way or another is a presumption, not a quantifiable number.

Your "math" is a cute little thought experiment, but hardly something working from a "foundation of facts." For that, you'll need to wait for the national convention . . . and then hope those super-delegates vote the way you think they should.

[CajunBlazer]

18. All pledged delegates are pledged through at least the first ballot.

It will probably be over before the first ballot and it will certainly will be over after the first ballot.

You can cling to thin threads if you would like, but they are destined to break.

[enlightenment]

37. Pledged when?

In my state, precinct delegates will not attend the county convention until next month and the state convention in mid-May. The precinct delegates are not pledged, nor are the county delegates - they are not bound to their vote until the state convention My state isn't the only one that uses that model.

You are pushing the hard facts of your mathematical model, but the numbers are not set in stone in many states, so there is no way that you can make a quantifiable assertion of fact until there is a final determination of state delegates. And as far as super-delegates go, you won't know which way they will vote until the national convention.

My "thin thread" is a lot sturdier than your "math" at the moment, but feel free to cling to your beliefs.

[CajunBlazer]

46. You're probably in one of the caucus states - I'm guessing Iowa

If so then you know the outcomes of the state convention lmost always mirror the results of the initial caucus results - if they didn't that is an perfect reason for getting rid of the caucus system. (It's a stupid system regardless.) As you know, the delegates chosen at the state convention to attend the national convention are "pledged" according to Democratic Party rules and must vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged on at least the first ballot. Their votes are recorded for them. And with the super delegates weighing in, Clinton will win on the first ballot unless some major unforeseen event happens between now and then.

So let's not try to muddy the water with state "details" - the bottom line is that the results of state primaries and caucuses do (through some process or another) result in pledged delegates representing the states at the national convention and those pledged delegates are almost without exception are going to represent the results of their state's primary or caucus.

So let's quit the BS.

[NuclearDem]

39. Yes, democracy, where 2.5 million more people have voted for Clinton than Sanders.

[Jarqui]

7. If Bernie were to win more delegates than Hillary via the election

process, can you guarantee no super delegates will jump ship like they did in 2008 when they changed their support to Obama? Nope, you cannot.

Therefore, your numbers are counting your chickens before they're hatched.

If you really like dealing with numbers and facts, I suggest you consider those and recalculate because those superdelegates are not firm.

I think it works out very roughly to Bernie turning the tables and winning roughly 60% to Hillary's roughly 40% in the primaries to come, like Hillary did in the first half of the primary.

Is that enough to tun the tables, probably not but a number a little better for a clear victory might.

[CajunBlazer]

16. Another "thread" that some have been hanging on to.

Again, let's deal with the facts. The super delegates "pledged" to Clinton did not have to "promise" their votes to Clinton this early in the race. They could have waited and jumped on the train only after it was pulling into the station. They "pledged" early because they wanted her to win because either they believe she is the best candidate for the Democratic party or they have personal reasons for doing so. There can be no argument about that.

They could technically still "jump ship", but it is unreasonable for them to do so as long as they have the excuse that Hillary is at least one pledged delegate more than Sanders and right now she is 306 ahead. Sanders needs to win big in almost every remaining state, especially in delegate rich states, to come close to catching up. There are only two "big" states left, New York and California, and he is more than 10 points behind in both and both have large minority populations. He would be fortunate to get "virtual ties" in those states and that won't cut it.

Can Sanders "catch up" with Clinton with pledged delegates? - It's possible. Is it likely? - Absolutely not!

But say that Sanders did the near impossible and actually edged out Clinton in pledged delegates in the final tally. He would still need to persuade at least half of the pledged delegates to "jump ship". Like that is going to happen. Half of the delegates are not going to abandon a life long Democrat with the most experience to be President in recent memory in favor of an independent from a tiny state who pretended to be a Democrat to get "media coverage" and who has been complaining the Democratic Party and fighting Democrats to get elected his entire political career.

That tread you are hanging on to is very thin and weak and it is destined to break.

[Jarqui]

35. It's not a thread I'm clinging to because it's so unlikely.

I'd love to see it happen but I realize he needs to more than just edge her out - and the more he needs to beat her by, the smaller the odds are that he can do that. And I basically said that above that mathematically, he needs 60-40 to beat her but he needs better than that to get the nomination.

If she gets indicted (which I also think is very unlikely before the election on the classified stuff and after the election Obama will leave her with a pardon if needed, the Clinton Foundation I'm not as sure about), then that could change the probabilities. Support for her would drop dramatically. Not many super delegates would stick with her then. There were lots with her last time who jumped ship. So I do not think it's right to count those the same way yet.

[CajunBlazer]

38. I think you are being realistic.

Certainly major things can happen during a campaign, though very, very unlikely. I did a lot of research on the email situation for a blog article I was writing and I can tell you almost categorically that there will be no incitements based on the FBI investigation.

A lot of people grew suspicious when the computer technician (a person employed by the State department in that capacity) who built out and maintained Hillary's email server was offered immunity from prosecution to tell his story. Many people jumped to the conclusions because this is often a step used by the FBI used to get "little fish" to rat on the "bigger fish" up the line.

What people didn't understand is the reason that technician was because he had failed to claim a good bit of income which Hillary had paid him on his taxes and his State Department disclosure forms and he claimed he didn't want to incriminate himself further. His lawyer probably advised him not divulge what he knew about the server set up, not because it might information would incriminate him, but to use that information as leverage to escape prosecution for his other infractions. Looks like he got his immunity. (Smart lawyer, smart client.)

Actually the fact that he got immunity is a good thing in my humble opinion. Now the FBI can wrap up the case quicker since they now have his testimony. And the quicker that this case can be disposed of, the better it is for Clinton.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be expecting any surprises from that quarter.

[Jarqui]

57. I've looked pretty hard at that email stuff and there is little doubt in my mind

criminal laws were broken and if Obama doesn't intervene with a pardon, there will be indictments. They cannot look a Marine guard at an embassy or other Federal employees in the eye if they don't. The violations of the law were pretty blatant.

They've got depositions from the CIA of information being classified at the time of transmission. Whether it was marked classified or not, Clinton was responsible to protect classified information - including information that was likely to get retroactively classified.

But I think the administration is going to protect her and not do anything before the election if it's just a classified email problem. They'll run out the clock until after the election if they can. They can easily do that by the Attorney General asking an Independent Counsel to look it over and make recommendations. It's a complicated case and could easily take him a year or more to get through it all. If the subpoenas turn up evidence of the Clinton Foundation and quid pro quo, all bets are off on what they'll do. She's in deeper trouble then.

I think Pagliano is helping them land bigger fish faster. Reports are that he's been very helpful but it's an unnamed source so we can't completely rely on them.

Claiming the immunity deal for Pagliano's State Dept disclosure forms seems like nonsense. It strikes me as a David Brock leak to throw off the scent. They've already caught Pagliano and got him dead to rights. They have the disclosure forms and they apparently know he got income he didn't declare on those disclosure forms from the Clintons. He declared the first year for $5,000 to set it up and "forgot" the other three for maintenance (probably less - maybe expenses for all we know). He's not going to jail for that nor anything beyond a fine - if they bother. Game, set and match on that. Why should they haggle with him? It doesn't matter what he says because they've already got all the evidence they need to nail him.

If the above were really the case, when Gowdy subpoenaed him, he could have come in and testified to all the other questions - except those related to his disclosure form & just plead the fifth on those questions (if they even arose). But that's not what he did.

I do note the immunity was reported as "limited" - I think limited to the peril outlined here:

What he needs immunity from are the potential criminal charges involved with helping set up an illegal system that was going to compromise classified material. That server was unauthorized, unsecure and had classified material on it. They'd been warned against doing some of what they did for security reasons at length and repeatedly. The investigators have emails and staff to back that up. That can be prosecuted as a felony with a good chance of getting a conviction. That's where he really needs immunity.

[Bonobo]

8. It must be your authentic Cajun Heritage (TM). nt

[CajunBlazer]

20. I use that symbol because it is the Japanese symbol for "patience"

And a lot of patience is needed on DU. It is also the symbol on the back of my karate gi (uniform).

[Bonobo]

25. What ryu do you train in?

I do traditional Okinawan Goju-ryu here in Japan now now but am also a shodan in Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu.

[CajunBlazer]

32. Traditional Sto Ru Yoshukai

Go-dan, Shihan - 5th Degree, Senior Instructor

My instructor an 8th degree (now passed) was a student of Mamoru Yamamoto - one of the few 10th degree masters left in Japanese Karate.

Since you are in Japan, you can visit his dojo, though his is getting old and doesn't teach much any more. If you meet him ask him about Ray Nichols. I'm sure he will have many stories about Ray.

[Bonobo]

66. I'm guessing you mean shito-ryu. Right? nt

On edit: Maybe you mean Chito-ryu (named after Chitose-sensei?)

[CajunBlazer]

70. You're right of course

My instructor would be displeased, but I never could spell the Japanese terms so I attempted to look it up and and picked the wrong term. My bad.

What's it like studying Karate in Japan? I heard all of my instructors stories, but he was like a 4th when he first traveled to Japan to study under Sensai Yamamoto. He had been a student for years under Mike Foster in Florida before going over for the first time and was already an excellent fighter. On later trips he ended up teaching in Sensai Yamamoto dojo.

So I always suspected that he was treated differently than I would have been had I gone to Japan to study in that same dojo at a much lower rank. That's why I am interested in your experiences.

As much as my instructed respected and admired Sensai Yamamoto and spoke glowingly about his experiences in Japan - he would go for several month at a time and stay at Sensai's house near or adjoining the dojo - he mentioned several times in more serious moments that he sensed a low level prejudice against Americans in the martial arts in Japan. Has that been your experiences as well.

[Bonobo]

73. Let's talk by PM! nt

[NWCorona]

11. Are you from Louisiana?

[CajunBlazer]

21. Originally from Lafayette

But my job brought me to Birmingham where I have lived for many years. It is now home.

[NWCorona]

22. Sweet!

My dad's side of the family is from Lafayette and Shreveport.

[CajunBlazer]

26. Cool! - Pure Cajun here from both sides of my family

One of my aunts traced my mother's side of the family back into Nova Scotia and then back into France before they immigrated between the 1640's and early 1750's.

When I was growing up, it wasn't cool to be Cajun, but that has changed somewhat.

[NWCorona]

28. Agreed!

It is kinda the cool thing now.

[revbones]

12. Math - it does not work the way you explain

Wow. The audacity of that post is rather stunning.

Whether you believe it's possible or not for Sanders to overcome the numbers, you need to take super-delegates out of the equation in order for that post to have any honesty at all. Otherwise you are implying that were Sanders to win the popular vote that the super-delegates would remain in opposition and that is not a fact no matter how you obfuscate things and it has been demonstrably false in previous years.

The number of pledged delegates is 4,038 of which there are 2,106 remaining

Hillary has 1119 pledged delegates

Bernie has 813 pledged delegates.

Honesty would seem to dictate that you should recalculate your math correctly.

[CajunBlazer]

23. Chech your facts

Real Clear Politics Election 2016 — Democratic Delegate Count

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Take it up with DWS

Who said you do not add them

I think she knows.

By the way, RCP has them in a nice separate list not added to the total

[CajunBlazer]

87. So am I to assume that if Bernie were to catch up with Hillary...

in pledged delegates before the primaries and caucuses are over, that the un-promised super delegates would automatically side with Bernie and that he could flip enough of Hillary's promised super delegates required to win the nomination?

This isn't Barack Obama we are talking about having to drastically increase his super delegate count at the last minute, we talking about Bernie Sanders. This is a person who has been an independent his entire political career who has run against Democrats almost every time he has sought public office. This is a guy who has criticized the Democratic Party for years and who admits he is running as a Democrat only to get media attention.

Yea, I can see why the super delegates are going to flock to his cause.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. No, what you can assume is what usually happens

Whoever leads gets the most super delegates like, oh 2008

[CajunBlazer]

92. For hopefully the last time - Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama

While certainly the challenger in 2008 was a solid Democrat all of his political career and a fantastic orator and a young rising star in the Democratic party. His keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention impressed everyone and jump started Presidential campaign.

Sanders on the other hand is a old grumpy Senator from a tiny state who spent most of his political career running against Democrats and complaining about both of the major parties.

Just because the super delegates move to support Obama in 2008 is absolutely no indication that they will move toward giving the nomination to Sanders if he were to emerge with the most pledged delegates by a small margin in 2016. The entire super delegate system was installed specifically to keep grass root organization from nominating candidates which Party veterans believe will be detrimental to the best interest of the Party. In other words for for the situation like the one we are discussing.

But worry not. Sanders could win by small margins in every remaining primary and caucus and still not cut significantly into Clinton big lead. He would have to win big in many primary and caucuses, especially in the only two delegate rich states remaining - New York and California - and he is way behind according to recent polls in each of those two states. Bernie simply is not going to win more pledged delegates than Clinton, in fact I will most surprised if he doesn't end up even further behind than he is now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. For hopefully the last time

You can save the lecture Bernie is Bernie, Obama is Obama.

And for hopefully the last time I told you what will happen if somehow the campaign is correct

Mind you, hopefully for the last time, the US has a non functional democracy. Oh and it has not since at least 2000.

[CajunBlazer]

96. No, the US is absolutely a fully functional democracy

It's just not functioning as you would like right now because your candidate isn't winning. We are not voting for a President now, we are voting for the nominee of the Democratic Party. "Correct" is the Democratic Party determines is correct. The party can set up any rules which party officials decide they want to enforce. State party associations can set up any rules they want for their primaries and caucuses within the set guidelines by DNC.

LOL!!! You guys couldn't care less if the nomination process is fair; you just want a set of rules that will give your candidate a victory.

However, the party rules were open enough to allow a gentleman who has never been a Democrat, who had run consistently against Democrats his entire political career, and who has constantly complained about Democrats to run for its nomination. I don't think it is asking to much to ask him to follow the same rules as everyone else.

What I find absolutely amusing are Sanders' campaign workers and his supporters on her on DU. At first they were complaining about the super delegates being "undemocratic". Then they figured out that the super delegates may be the only thing that could keep Hillary from cinching the nomination before the convention so the "undemocratic" meme went away. Now we hear the Bernie campaign manager outline a strategy to be used if Sanders can't close the gap after the completion of the primaries and caucuses where they would try to convince the super delegates to give Bernie the nomination anyway, "because he would be more electable". If wasn't so sad it would be laughable.

And don't talk to me about being "undemocratic" when your buddies alert on every harmless post they don't like and then vote to hid those comments while while blatantly claiming that Hillary is guilty every foul thing they can think of. One thing I have learned during this campaign is that the far left likes to use the same undemocratic tactics as the far right in trying to shut down any comments they disagree with. (New evidence of the Horseshoe Principle.) The situation got so bad that the admins had to do something about the blatant abuse of the alert and jury systems.

So don't dare talk about being "undemocratic" - if you don't like the rules we live by, go start your own party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Keep living in that fantasy

[CajunBlazer]

98. It isn't Hillary supporters who are living in a fantasy world my friend.

Idealism over pragmatism, "the revolution is coming, nothing can stop it now", "once Bernie explains his positions, everyone will flock to him", "today no one cares that Bernie is a socialist", "Bernie came from so far back in the polls the result is virtual tie" (even though he lost and got less delegates", "Bernie is the most electable candidate", "when I get into office I am going to enact every socialist initiative known to man" (and I'll get those Republicans to Congress to like it.

Don't talk about living in a fantasy world my friend; you guy invented the fantasy world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. So you understand who your party nominates

I give two shits about. I really don't care or give two shits about. It is your party after all. I am one of those pesky independents you will need in the fall for the pretend elections.

I am not alone in thinking the US does not have a functional democracy any more. Nor am I alone in thinking tje GOP is in real trouble, the Dems are not that far behind, and party realignments are fun. Or that American democracy is in real trouble. So you can save your mostly ignorant rants for actual Sanders supporters ok.

[CajunBlazer]

101. You're obviously a pesky independent who, like Sanders....

...is too liberal to be a Democrats.

But please vote as you see fit, just don't try to use your vote as a weapon.

I don't think we will need your vote this time around anyway. You see Trump is scaring the hell out of anyone with half a brain in their head and there will be plenty of true independents voting for Hillary. And that's if the establishment Republicans don't try to take the nomination away from Trump at the convention - which will totally cause them to lose - or run a third candidate to make sure he loses.

I'll bet you hate that Bernie is losing the nomination - with the Republicans in total disarray, this was probably a once in a lifetime opportunity where he might have actually been able to win the Presidency.

Ah shucks. I hate when that happens. Sorry I have better thing to do than to continue to talk with you tonight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Trust me I will

And who I vote for is my fucking business. Privacy of the ballot and all that.

[revbones]

106. You might want to revisit that link yourself.

I was a but shy on the total delegates (4,038 vs 4,051), however the 1119 and 813 are correct and what is shown on that link.

[Bread and Circus]

108. LoL I did go to that website and you are so fucking wrong

You are including super delegates in your OP even though you act like you aren't.

Please uninstall the internet from your computer

[Thinkingabout]

103. Those super delegates Sanders is counting to change over to him at the convention?

[MohRokTah]

14. This completely explains why the numbers never add up in Sanders' economic drivel.

The man is incapable of understanding basic mathematics.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Here's an example on film of a person not dealing in facts:

[CajunBlazer]

24. If the facts are inconvenient - change the subject

[Bluenorthwest]

64. The subject is how you love facts but other people don't. That's the title of your piece.

I showed you your candidate getting important facts disgustingly, painfully, shamefully wrong. I can see why that might be something you'd rather not deal with but you are the one who picked this time to claim that you are the folks who are all about facts while those others hate facts. Nancy and Ron were monsters. That's the fact. Sorry your candidate did that, but she did. Her campaign is about fiction not fact, her supporters are about postures, not principles.

I can't believe Democrats exist who don't hate the Reagans for what they did with AIDS and other things. I assume you folks to be the Reagan Democrats and they were just Republicans with better hair.

[CajunBlazer]

65. I'm not going to read your BS

Please stick to the subject or find another thread.

[NuclearDem]

41. Those remarks have about as much bearing on the delegate math

as Sanders' "ghetto" remarks do.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. I disagree. The OP's contention is he and his are all about facts, sound, solid facts.

So the fact that the OP's own candidate just laid down a large pile of very much 'not fact' and used it to praise Ronald and Nancy for doing the exact thing they are infamous for not doing seems very much applicable to this attitude of 'we are the facts people'. Your own candidate's facts about the leading public health crisis of our time were all incredibly wrong and self serving. It was exploitative fiction, so this chest pounding about factual accuracy is an assertion built on dubious foundations.

The OP is personal and it is finger pointing 'Some people don't like dealing with math and facts - but I do'. So to play the hard core facts and figures crew you need a leader who can remember the history of her own lifetime and not praise villains as heroes casually on TV in the middle of an election.

It's absurd to see the arrogance. Wise people say arrogance is a risky choice, but what do they know?

[NuclearDem]

67. Those statements have absolutely nothing to do with the delegate math.

They are, however, yet another non sequitur from you attempting to derail a topic you don't find comfortable.

[Gothmog]

19. I also like math

Thanks for the numbers

[Land of Enchantment]

29. Borrowed from Kristopher..

She WILL NOT get over 54% of the votes!


Required to win nomination:
2383
Delegates available in upcoming contests:
2308

Sanders Pledged Delegates + (required to win):
825 + (1558) = 2383

Needs 67.5% of remaining to clinch nomination


Clinton Pledged Delegates + (required to win):
1139 + (1244) = 2383

Needs 54% of remaining to clinch nomination

IMO that looks like a high probability of a brokered convention. That is when the super delegates become relevant; until then their preference is irrelevant. And if/when we get there, the value of their current commitment is far less important than the lay of the political landscape at the time of the convention.

[firebrand80]

33. So the SDs are going to abandon Hillary?

The candidate with the most pledged delegates?

That makes about as much sense as "The United States will no longer lead the world in incarceration rates by the end of my first term"

[vintx]

43. They won't be making that decision until the convention.

Their decision will be affected by:
- the delegate count AT THAT TIME
- the momentum AT THAT TIME
- as yet unknown events (what are the odds they convene a grand jury & issue subpoenas related to emails this spring?)

[CajunBlazer]

48. I don't agree with the opinion presented, but it would not be a brokered convention regardles

At worst it would be a convention where one candidate or the other did not cinch the nomination before the convention begins.

Brokered conventions only occur if none of candidates can secure the nomination on the first ballot and at least some of the formally pledged delegates are released from their pledges for the second ballot.

However, with only two candidates involved it is almost impossible for the matter to not be settled on the first ballot. One of the two candidates will win on the first ballot so there is no possibility of a "brokered" convention. And by the way the winning candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

Why do I have to keep explaining the "math" to you folks?

[JonLeibowitz]

76. I agree with essentially everything you have posted.

I don't dispute it because it is correct. Perhaps you see some selection bias of who posts in the thread?

Anyway, I still think that the winner will be whoever has the most pledged delegates (likely Clinton). The superdelegates wouldn't dare back either candidate without a majority of pledged delegates (though I relish the thought because the Democratic party needs to re-examine its identity and this would be a high-profile discussion of what exactly the party stands for aside from intersectionality)

Peace.

[Land of Enchantment]

79. I spent a lot of time in cajun country but ya'll are never

going to be invited to one of these shin-digs...

[whatchamacallit]

30. The math on your views:recs

not so good.

[NuclearDem]

42. Sorry, we've been a little too busy actually voting to care about Recs and Internet polls.

How many recs is it going to take to win New York?

[whatchamacallit]

44. I'm curious

about your handle. What's the meaning or significance of being a "nuclear dem"?

[NuclearDem]

45. Nuclear has been a word that I've used in IDs and handles since I was 12.

Just a habit.

[whatchamacallit]

47. I see...

Thanks.

[Hiraeth]

36. Accountants deal with math

and some are really good at cooking the books

[CajunBlazer]

49. Okay, why don't explain to everyone why my math is "cooked"

Go ahead, the math is all spelled out right there for you. So us how it is "cooked". We're waiting.

Or you just at a loss to say anything else but some meaningless catch phrase and you felt obliged to comment?

[Hiraeth]

68. I 'll take the odds.

[CajunBlazer]

69. Folks, we have a high roller here

[Hiraeth]

74. The whole earth. So yeah. And , minorly, my SS.

[Logical]

71. Were waiting? You and who else?

[ibegurpard]

40. probabilities are not facts

[CajunBlazer]

50. What I posted are facts; you implied the probilities, not I

[highprincipleswork]

51. Providing that is correct, what does that mean to you? It's not over till it's over.

And just because someone "wins" the Democratic nomination process, you do realize that could mean very little in the end. They could, for instance, govern pretty much like a Republican. They could lose the general election. They could be unenthusiastically supported. They could do all sorts of horrible things. They also could start losing by the same percentages they've won by in the past.

All sorts of things could happen.

All I know is that it is very strange to see people going all nuts over a candidate that is very likely to go back on their current word in almost every instance and do possibly more damage than a Republican can do, because at least a Republican might be fought by our party.

[CajunBlazer]

52. I only presented facts; sorry if you don't like the math

I made no deductions based on the math. However, I do like the odds that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. Don't you?

[HumanityExperiment]

58. Here's a fact...

I do enjoy that Bernie remaining in the primary race continue to force Hillary to the left so there is that win or lose

I do like those odds...

I can guarantee that she will continue to embrace Bernie's policies and make promises on those policy positions which is the goal regardless of candidate that's leading

[highprincipleswork]

62. I don't believe I protested your math or your "facts" in any way.

Doesn't mean I have to like it when the Democratic Party appears to sell out to corporate interests.

Doesn't mean either that her odds for becoming President are all that great. That's going to have to go through a whole other accounting process.

If Hillary Clinton more clearly represented a Progressive choice, or the person most likely to prevail against Trump, don't you think it would be far easier to convince others to stand down?

[Hoyt]

53. Any of those who think Sanders will take it care to wager?

[CajunBlazer]

54. I doubt you will get any takers

But I am sure they can get excellent odds on Sanders right now at Los Vegas casino's.

[Hoyt]

55. LOL. I wasn't planing on giving odds.

[CajunBlazer]

56. I know - I was trying to keep you from abusing the poor Sanders folks

[Gwhittey]

59. Sanders should not drop out

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. So give him to at least the convention.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. I still want him to stay in. My state is the largest, and I want to vote in the primary.

Sanders also needs to stay in the race in the unlikely event that Clinton's legal issues come to a head before the convention.

[CajunBlazer]

61. I would say VERY unlikely event - but your reason is understandable

I think that Californians will get to vote while the matter is still to be decided, but you can still vote regardless.

I want Sanders to stay in as well because if he drops out the media will lose all attention and concentrate on the circus on the other side of the isle 24/7.

[Logical]

72. What the hell is the point of this post? Math is fun? Look at me!!!! Nt

[CajunBlazer]

93. It's actually an effort to introduce some people to reality

But obviously some like their dream world to well to leave.

[oasis]

75. Bernie supporter math: "Pi" in the sky.

[Cheese Sandwich]

78. This math is kind of wrong. It mixes pledged and unpledged delegates

[CajunBlazer]

88. Please see my answers to other posts making similar statements.

[k8conant]

80. Redo the math: The ebb is done; the flow is now

Here is the math - plain and simple without superdelegates

Total delegates (pledged and super) = 4051 + 712 = 4763

Delegates needed to win = 2382
Majority of pledged delegates = 2026

Pledged delegates won = Clinton 1122 + Sanders 798 = 1920

Pledged delegates still available = 4051 - 1920 = 2131

Clinton delegates still needed for majority = 2026 - 1122 = 904
Clinton - percentage of remaining delegates for majority = 904/2131 = 42.42%


Sanders delegates still needed for majority = 2026 - 798 = 1228
Sanders - percentage of remaining delegates for majority = 1228/2131 = 57.62%

[Still In Wisconsin]

81. It really doesn't seem that hard--

Roughly half of the delegates are still out there. Clinton is still the favorite. But you don't leave in the middle of the fifth inning down, say, 5-3.

[Garrett78]

107. Poor analogy.

Carolina dominated the first half of this year's Super Bowl, and Seattle dominated the second half. But primary campaigns are not like individual sporting events. We have more than 2 dozen primaries and caucuses available for analysis, and it's clear which demographics each candidates does best with.

Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. That's not a pattern that will suddenly get flipped upside down. And it takes a lot of Utahs to equal one New York. By the end of April, Clinton's lead will undoubtedly be larger than it is now, not smaller.

[CajunBlazer]

86. Interesting and valid to a certain extent

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I feel that it is somewhat naive to assume that the super delegates will not be a factor. However, it useful in determining whether Hillary can cinch the nomination before the convention.

If Bernie were to pull even with Hillary before the convention (and your math shows what he would have to do to pull even), he would then have to "flip" enough of the super delegates already promised to Hillary win the nomination. I think you can see that wouldn't happen - it would mean that the two candidates would essentially be tied in pledged delegates and that almost half of super delegates promised to Hillary would turn on her and give the nomination the nomination to Bernie

On the other hand my math shows what Bernie would have to do if not one of the super delegates promised to Hillary changed sides and all of the 219 super delegates not already promised to either candidate would go to Bernie (which is somewhat a leap of an assumption).

Based on the reality of the situation and my understanding of how super delegates will act in various situational I think that my analysis is a much more accurate of dedication of the actual situation than yours. The critical assumption in theses calculations concerns how far ahead in pledged delegates does Bernie have to be going into the convention in order win all of the super delegates not already promised and flip enough of Hillary's super delegate to win

I would argue the number of pledged delegates that Bernie has to be ahead going into the convention in order to win is a lot closer to the results of my calculations than yours. The reason is Bernie relatively standing within the Democratic party. If the situation were Barack Obama trying to catch up with Hillary, I could go with your calculations. But Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama - he has been an independent for his entire political career and has run against Democrats almost every time he sought public office. He has consistently criticized both major parties and he admits he is running as a Democrat "to attract media attention".

Super delegates are not going to go out of their way to hand him the Democratic Party nomination just because he has more pledged delegates by small margin.

But you know what, in all likelihood it doesn't matter. Even given the states remaining it will extremely difficult for Bernie to win big enough in enough states to catch Hillary. To catch up Bernie needs to win very big in delegate states and there are only 2 left New York and California. Bernie is 34 points behind in New York according to the latest polls and 13 points behind in California. Now that his momentum has been reversed, I think that he will be lucky to not get any further behind.

[MaggieD]

82. Math

[Cha]

83. Pesky math.. the harder it is for them to deal with it .. the harder the fall.

[NurseJackie]

84. They see the same numbers we do ...

... and that helps to explain the ugly behavior we observe from many of his "supporters".

[Sancho]

85. ...and with every primary that is a "tie" or Hillary win, it gets harder for Bernie...

just to graphically show a view of 2008 compared to 2016:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110776232

[CajunBlazer]

89. Yep.

[CajunBlazer]

90. Summary of posts thus far

There have been a number of objections to my math - the primary being my inclusion of super delegates. There is even a post with showing the same calculations without the super delegates showing that Bernie would have earn about 57% of the remaining pledged delegates to draw even with Clinton. I think that I have adequately answered those objections, but here the bottom line - Bernie still has win and win big to close the delegate gap which Hillary has opened. There is no doubt about that.

But you know what, in all likelihood it doesn't matter. Even given the states remaining it will extremely difficult for Bernie to win big enough in enough states to catch Hillary. To catch up Bernie needs to win very big in big delegate states and there are only 2 left - New York and California. Bernie is 34 points behind in New York according to the latest polls and 13 points behind in California. He will be fortunate to draw even in those big states in time for their primaries. He is not going to win gig. Forget about Bernie catching Clinton; it's not going to happen. Now that his momentum has been reversed, I think that he will be lucky to not get any further behind.

[ibegurpard]

94. again

You confuse probability with fact. That seems to be a fault you need to work on.

[CajunBlazer]

102. If you beleive differently I suggest you take a trip to Vegas

There you can get extremely good odds if you are willing to bet on Bernie.

[Garrett78]

109. Consider the overarching pattern.

Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states.

That's not a pattern that will suddenly get flipped upside down.

[oasis]

100. Kick

[beachbum bob]

104. I don't like no stinkin math....its shows my guy not able to win....

throw out the math, ignore the math.....change the math....we CAN'T have THE MATH!!!! In this case, the math is simple and its clear......

just because you don't like the bottom line, doesn't change the bottom line....threatening to take your ball home and not play is pretty much what it is