Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I remember 2008 is that the pledged-delegate count was the one that was always front-and-center, and the superdelegates were an afterthought (because the feeling, which turned out to be exactly the case, was that they would drift over to Obama eventually). This year, on CNN and elsewhere, their delegate tracking always includes superdelegates. Seems unfair to Sanders.

if you go below 15% you get no delegates

― Mordy, Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:28 PM (2 minutes ago

oh i see what you mean

Unless the Democratic Party wants to tear itself in half in the same year the GOP is doing so just to even the playing field, I doubt that the superdelegates would want to thwart the apparent will of the people at the convention, if it came to that

xp in my calculation above i only counted pledged delegates which is really the insurmountable part to my eyes. now if bernie can win in most/all of NY, NJ, PA, CA i'd feel more optimistic about his campaign.

I got Bernie going from needing something 58.3% of the remaining pledged delegates before yesterday to now needing about 56.7%.

*something like

xp in my calculation above i only counted pledged delegates

You did, which is good. The most prominent delegate trackers don't.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/parties/democrat
NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/
CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/

ABC's is a little better:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election

fwiw the democratic nomination odds didn't shift at all in response to yesterday's results, which suggest they didn't exceed expectations to those people

I think Sanders supporters actually have a reasonable case for Sanders's strength in a general election. But I find it frustrating that when HRC racks up huge margins in, I dunno, Tennessee or Alabama, those states are dismissed by Sanders supporters as "the old South" and irrelevant in the general, whereas Sanders getting big wins in WA, AK, HI reads as an important indicator of Sanders's strength. I think when Sanders massively outperformed polls in Michigan there was a real question: have things moved decisively in his favor? Is he more popular than HRC in Florida, in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, the states where general elections are actually decided? I think he's been A LOT STRONGER in FL and OH, and will be stronger in PA, than anybody would have expected three months ago. But I don't see how to get around the fact that more Democrats in those states are voting for Clinton.

To me, the superdelegates are just placeholders, and shouldn't be reported at all. Unless the feeling this time is that they're a solid bulwark against Sanders winning, even if he started pulling (improbable) upsets in New York and Pennsylvania. And then you'd run into the problem silby mentions.

I think if Sanders makes another huge leap in popularity and wins big in places like NY, PA, MD -- seems unlikely to me but so does a lot of stuff that's actually happened -- HRC concedes graciously and campaigns hard for him in the general. She's a Democrat, she's a creature of the party, I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

Yeah I don't understand why they are being reported as if they are already counted, exaggerating Clinton's lead.

Is there any chance Clinton gets indicted for the email server nonsense before she locks up enough delegates for the Democratic nomination? I have no idea how seriously to take that investigation since the online commentary about it is totally wackadoo.

I only read 538 on this stuff so I didn't even know other places were reporting superdelegate counts, agree there's no reason to

we've discussed it before and i still see no reason to consider it a serious possibility. xp

Thanks. My only line of reasoning for it being unlikely was how few Sanders supporters bring it up as a reason for him not to bow out until the convention.

adolescent conception

This counts as the "be an ADULT" argument, i collect $200

LOL, from the fucko who told people to "put on their pajamas" in the fucking Batman movie thread

i guess i'll just conclude my li'l victory dance/horselaugh over what Phil D considers coequal adolescent material and go watch The Straight Story in 35mm

Really trying to figure out whether the subtext of this entire thread is that Dr. Morbius is Armond White

http://i.imgur.com/edCYDCK.jpg

That flowchart, widely shared on my feed, is awesome for people who think being undecided between Sanders and Trump is a reasonable political stance, not so much for everybody else.

I think if Sanders makes another huge leap in popularity and wins big in places like NY, PA, MD -- seems unlikely to me but so does a lot of stuff that's actually happened -- HRC concedes graciously and campaigns hard for him in the general. She's a Democrat, she's a creature of the party, I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:58 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i would bet my entire bank account against HRC doing this if i could -- she stayed in through june against obama, remember. besides, even if she started losing big states, she could still clinch the nomination with a sting showing in CA to close it out

HOF Freudian slip: "with a sting showing"--entraps Bernie in a heroin ring.

I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

nah

i mean yeah i'm sure she'd prefer sanders over a republican but there's no way she'd back off 'for the good of the party'. to her, the good of the party means her winning

i would bet my entire bank account against HRC doing this if i could

Sorry, I made it sound like I thought HRC would drop out in April -- I agree that's hard to imagine. I think she'd concede before the convention and campaign hard for him afterwards.

But again, I don't actually think any of this is actually going to happen; I think Clinton is going to win in New York and Maryland and Pennsylvania and go into the convention with a majority of delegates.

to her, the good of the party means her winning

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. To my eye her entire public life is that of a loyal soldier for the Democratic party. She didn't try to undercut Obama once it was clear he'd be the nominee, even though a President McCain would have given her an opening in 2012.

There is no way she would ever, ever, ever, do that. Are we talking about the same HRC?

Yeah she only managed to impugn his professed religion ("as far as I know") and run a soft smear on him the whole time until she realized it was over and they agreed to make her the candidate next time.

Her team also indirectly originated the Birther movement

I am actually fascinated by this now, do you guys seriously think that if Sanders were the nominee Clinton would do anything other than go to the mat to get him elected President?

If he gets the nomination, obviously. But her standards of "once it's clear" would be very different from yours and mine.

i.e. after the convention. This is their last chance, remember—at least until Chelsea is launched.

yeah the only way hillary would drop out is if she's mathematically eliminated. which, with superdelegates, is probably not possible

So I guess this is where we differ. If Sanders somehow surges so strongly that he leads in pledged delegates, I see Clinton conceding at the convention.

until she realized it was over and they agreed to make her the candidate next time.

o rly

Um you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand this.

But yeah yr probably right, that's why the field was also open to....Jim Webb. And why Wasserman-Schultz got the DNC chair post.

She probably didn't leverage the PUMA vote in that meeting, either. Why do that? I mean, it's a merit-based system, right?

you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand this conspiracy i am alleging

why would they need to explicitly promise her anything? she has been a part of the party, raising funds for the party, representing the party, her entire political career. that's why almost all the superdelegates are pledged to her - not bc they crudely promised her at the convention that if she supports obama they pinky-swear they'll vote for her eight years from now.

You guys are shockingly naive about party politics.

Well he insisted he's right again, don't you all feel foolish

I guess that's one way to argue your point.

no i believe you it's just amazing that they got 719 superdelegates to agree to keep this agreement quiet including the delegates who are voting for bernie

if i were a superdelegate going for bernie i would tell cameras "the party promised hillary she would be the candidate next election and that's the only reason hillary has the majority of superdelegates right now"

there are still backdoor greasejobs in politics but they're much more difficult to pull off in this day and age due to the omnipresence of insta-media and recording technology, so I tend to feel like Mordy's otm here.

That flowchart, widely shared on my feed, is awesome for people who think being undecided between Sanders and Trump is a reasonable political stance, not so much for everybody else.

thread humorlessness reaching Park Slope Food Co-op levels

http://i.imgur.com/NZNRiXR.gif

xpost Mordy ok you are being disingenuous now. Nobody said anything about a pinkie-promise or animal sacrifice or whatever it is you imagine I'm contending. The President is the de facto leader of the party. He holds sway over party rules and appointments. He had the power to readily advance a number of political allies, Daley people, Axelrod people, etc. (Don't forget HRC coming after him for Bill Ayers, btw.) But they felt they needed Hillary's endorsement, and were probably right. The terms are tacit, for fuck's sake it's been going on for hundreds of years—getting people jobs and in general discouraging—when the time comes—other potential candidates from raising too much money in the expectation he will back them.

i don't really understand why all this matters

Some of us (me) responding (too strongly?) to notion upthread that HRC is all about putting the Party first. Carry on....