2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUntil a candidate has 2383 delegates, nobody has "already lost"
Right now, neither Clinton nor Sanders has "already lost." Any claim to the contrary is not reality based.
Just something to keep in mind.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)Do you see how simple that is?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)At some point, his required share of the delegates will get SO high, that it will be EXTREMELY unlikely he could win.
This reminds me of climate change deniers. They always emphasize how it's not 100% certain.
Okay.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Many candidates have already dropped out this primary season and it's not at all uncommon for candidates to drop out before they're mathematically eliminated.
If Clinton is ahead by ~400 delegates at the end of April, as I suspect she will be, Sanders needs to consider the potential repercussions of continuing to run.
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)At what point is the math so unrealistic that he has essentially or effectively lost?
An average of 55% of all delegates going forward? 60%?
Given polling, super delegates, and money - at what point can we say that it is effectively over?
I say right now. But, I understand his supporters wanting to wait a bit before giving in to the mathematics.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But if Sanders doesn't rack up BIG victories over the next few weeks, it will be. If he can't win big in New York (which seems unlikely, but there hasn't been a ton of polling) then I don't see how anyone can plausibly assert that he is still viable.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)You know, the one's Hillary voted for.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)being declared the winner.
2008 was a notable exception, but Kerry never hit the magic number before being declared the winner. Gore had not hit it before the primaries were essentially over.
Bill Clinton was considered the presumptive nominee before hitting he magic number in 1992.
It rarely goes to the magic number, let alone the convention.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Usually the candidate who fails to realize they have lost becomes a pariah. There are usually consequences for them politically. For a Senator or Congressman doing something so stupid, they can usually count on crappy committee assignments. Kucinich suffered politically for that sort of bullshit.
Candidates who stay in but attack the Republicans rather than the presumed Democratic nominee, on the other hand, are usually rewarded politically.
We'll see which category of loser Sanders falls into.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)But even if he did lose, Sanders will still have more power than he did before he ran. After all, once the nominee is decided, someone's going to need to motivate the legions of his independent and far left supporters to fall in line. Clinton's not going to be able to do it by herself. I bet that's going to be worth a pretty penny politically.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's over.
Now we see what sort of loser the man is.
I have not trusted him since the last time I heard him on "Brunch with Bernie" several years ago. He always rubed me the wrong way, much like John Edwards always rubbed me the wrong way.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)since kids at 10 years old are pretty smart.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Consider what there is to overcome. The Democratic Party is aligned with the ruling class.
--imm
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)It's over.
you funny
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)While I'm technically "in the Draft" until the last pick is made, I'm not really in the draft, because there's no realistic scenario where a team would draft me.
Bernie remains in the race, but there's not much of a race left.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Or in pledged delegates.
Supers don't count until they vote, regardless of their stated preference.
If Clinton goes over that number before the convention on the strength of adding supers, that is not yet a "win."
Only if someone has gone over that number in PLEDGED delegates can it ever be said to be mathematically over prior to an actual floor vote of the convention.
Here is the current math without the supers, from earlier thread:
www.democraticunderground.com/12511521532
Total delegates (pledged and super) = 4763.
Super delegates = 717.
Of these, 493 are currently given in media counts as having expressed a preference. According to the media counts, in other words, 224 supers have not yet expressed a preference.
Pledged delegates = 4046.
Majority (half of pledged delegates plus 1) = 2024.
Total of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses so far = 1964.
Total pledged delegates remaining = 2082!
Clinton pledged delegates won = 1139.
Needs for majority of pledged delegates: 885.
To gain majority of pledged delegates, Clinton must win 42% of the delegates in the remaining contests.
Sanders pledged delegates won = 825.
Needs for majority of pledged delegates: 1199.
To gain majority of pledged delegates, Sanders must win 58% of the delegates in the remaining contests.
With the supers currently committed to Clinton (467) it is near-certain that during the primary season she will surpass a majority of the total delegates (2382 out of 4763) before anyone reaches a majority of the pledged delegates (2024 out of 4046). At that point the claim will be made that she has "clinched." This will be untrue, because supers can switch and should not be considered counted before the actual convention ballot.
If a candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates, the pressure will be on the supers to respect the decision of the primary elections and caucuses. They would reverse that decision at the risk of destroying the party's chances.
In a close race, the force of this moral argument can be further complicated by the eventuality that the winner of the pledged delegates is not the same as the winner of the (countable) total of individual votes cast.
Basically, Clinton wins cleanly in any scenario where she has the majority of pledged delegates, or is very close. Except that for Sanders to get ahead even by a little bit would require a series of blow-outs that would change the narrative with regard to momentum and electability.
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)I'm not exactly sure why the total numbers are in a minor state of flux, but they are.
And I'm glad that you acknowledge that superdelegates count.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I'd think it needs to be an odd number to prevent a potential tie.
I'm not a fan of superdelegates, but they won't be the determining factor this year anyway. Clinton will accumulate way more than 2026 pledged delegates.
rock
(13,218 posts)How did Bernie do it?
shraby
(21,946 posts)some sort of accident and become incapacitated.
No one wins until they are the convention with the required number of delegates.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And it's not uncommon for candidates to drop out when the writing's on the wall. Even when they haven't been mathematically eliminated.
Response to phantom power (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)put Bernie down saying it's over, put a fork in him, he's done, ain't gonna happen etc.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)If Bernie loses New York, there will be no way for him to catch up, except in theoretical terms.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)She gets the nomination, then trump becomes her target. It is pretty simple folks. Unless you don't think she's a very strong candidate? In which case, maybe you anointed the wrong candidate.
shanti
(21,675 posts)Until Bernie calls it a day, I won't either!!
Response to phantom power (Original post)
snowy owl This message was self-deleted by its author.
reddread
(6,896 posts)hindsight might be a little clearer on the subject.