Hill needed to win 65% of delegates last night to avoid contested convention

[magical thyme]

Today she needs to win 69.5% of remaining delegates. Here's the math:

2384 delegates needed to win nomination.

After last night, Hillary has 1651 to Bernie's 1346; accounting for 2997 delegates assigned (1651 + 1346 = 2997)

There are 1,054 pledged delegates left (4051 - 2997 = 1054).

Hillary needs to win 733 of those delegates (1651 + 733 = 2384).

That means she needs to win 69.5% of the remaining delegates to win without the Supers. (733/1054 = .6954 x 100 = 69.54%)

Bernie has made it clear he is in until the last vote is cast.

https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/725155040411959298

[ALittleBirdie]

1. K & R

[nenagh]

2. K&R

[merrily]

3. Magical Thyme, I sincerely hope this comment does not offend you in any way

I love you.

[Hiraeth]

4. hope.

thanks for giving me that.

[thereismore]

5. Thank you Sen Sanders for staying and using our money

exactly as it was meant to be. All the way to the Convention.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Thank you! Time to donate again!

Never forget - FBI INVESTIGATION. I'm just sayin'.

We all know she broke the law just by having a private server in her freakin' basement. Now, will Comey do the right thing before it's too late to save our country?

Okay...off to donate!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[JudyM]

7. He's likely waiting for the Supreme Court decisision on the McDonnell corruption case.

Posted this on another thread:

Oral argument is taking place today, as a matter of fact. The case centers on how narrowly public corruption/bribery should be defined. The issue under review is basically whether granting increased access or the like for donors is prohibited, or if the prohibition is more narrowly applicable only to more substantive "official acts."

Pro/con positions: "corruption must be narrowly confined to deliberate use of specific government action to avoid criminalizing political activity" vs concern that "the current system of campaign finance ... contributes to the corrupting of government officials who depend upon that system."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-preview-political-favors-as-crimes/

It's fabulous that Scalia isn't on the court any more since he was the poster boy for conflicts of interest.

They'll hand down a decision by the end of June. It strikes me that the FBI would wait to see if the Court articulates a standard that would be applicable to Clinton, because that would limit or expand the scope of what they would indict her for.

[magical thyme]

9. couldn't they recommend indictment on the gross negligance now

and save the public corruption to either add to charges later or as a separate indictment?

Because it seems to me that although the private server was intended to hide the corruption, the gross negligence is a totally separate issue.

[JudyM]

10. Sure, you're correct that those are separate counts. However, they may have decided to package them

together into a single referral. Particularly if they are alleging that her decision to use the server was to some extent connected to an intention to evade detection of corruption.

[magical thyme]

11. true. I just read through the article...

I think Clinton's situation differs from McDonnell's in one respect.

From what I understand, in at least one instance (Boeing) the quid pro quo is blatant.

And who knows what those 30,000 "personal" emails contain? Not to mention the secret speeches.

[JudyM]

12. Yes. However, from available facts, they will have no trouble establishing a clear pattern/practice

of $ directly preceding or following actual, official decisions made by Clinton, which is a tighter case than what they had against McDonnell => for which the Appellate court upheld his conviction! The question the Supremes are looking at is whether the benefits he offered his donor rose to the level of official acts... No question about that when Clinton was arranging arms deals for her donors as SOS... or intervening in IRS prosecution, or...

[magical thyme]

13. Which is why I don't think Comey is waiting for the outcome

because they don't need it.

I just think he wants as airtight a case as possible. They slipped through his grasp with Whitewater. This time he's got who knows what in the emails, who knows what in depositions from her aides. Both FBI and 2 FOIA depositions -- my understanding is that the FOIA depositions are automatically evidence for the FBI.

[JudyM]

14. Right, but it's not about the facts, it's about having certainty on the particulars of the legal

standard that will be applied. If it were my case, I would wait for the law from the Supremes.

[TheProgressive]

8. Just donated $27 to Senator Sanders...

In it to win it up to the very end...

Hey, who knows what the FBI might turn up...