Clinton will get nominated, regardless of vote. So far she wins 2 states.

[Hugo Drax]

Iowa she wins
New Hampshire she wins 15 to 13 delegates.

The Democratic party has an emergency system in place to insure if the sheep get out of line, the backstop kicks in and she wins.

So far the New Hampshire backstop kicked in, it is like a Put option, the establishment exercised the put option and Clinton won.

The press will still report the Sanders victory to keep the sheep calm.

 

[Virge_]

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Zorba]

Got a link, Real clear politics says it is 9 to 13 on the delegates.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Got a link, Real clear politics says it is 9 to 13 on the delegates.

Google is your friend.

 

[fskimospy]

She won't get nominated regardless of the vote. She might get nominated if the end delegate total from the states was close with her slightly behind, but the party wouldn't try to overturn a clear victory.

 

[Hugo Drax]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09#NH-Dem


Also clinton has 394 super delegates who are voting for her regardless of the outcome. so she is ahead before any elections in the 48 other states.

 

[Hugo Drax]

She won't get nominated regardless of the vote. She might get nominated if the end delegate total from the states was close with her slightly behind, but the party wouldn't try to overturn a clear victory.

A clear victor is who has the most super delegates/delegates. Regardless of what the popular vote is.

So far Hillary has a clear victory.

 

[Dulanic]

Got a link, Real clear politics says it is 9 to 13 on the delegates.

Those wonderful super delegates that go against the publics vote. Love politics....

 

[GoPackGo]

If Hillary is the nominee I think the Republicans win.

 

[fskimospy]

A clear victor is who has the most super delegates/delegates. Regardless of what the popular vote is.

So far Hillary has a clear victory.

No, I mean a clear victor before superdelegates are counted. They are not pledged and therefore can change their minds at any time. If Sanders started winning clearly in the states they would switch.

Also, aren't you the guy predicting a Jeb! victory?

 

[Hugo Drax]

No, I mean a clear victor before superdelegates are counted. They are not pledged and therefore can change their minds at any time. If Sanders started winning clearly in the states they would switch.

Also, aren't you the guy predicting a Jeb! victory?

Jeb victory is in the works. Rome was not built in a day.

 

[Zorba]

Google is your friend.

I used Google and it says 9 (Clinton) to 13 (Sanders). So can you provide a link to back up what you are saying? Or are you internationally misleading by including superdelegates from the state?

 

[Virge_]

She won't get nominated regardless of the vote. She might get nominated if the end delegate total from the states was close with her slightly behind, but the party wouldn't try to overturn a clear victory.

From what I remember you're correct, historically. If I recall, during the 2008 election the super delegates stated they would side with the majority - and they did.

The difference appears to be that currently the sweeping majority of superdeligates (80% responded by Feb 2nd, so approximately 15% before New Hampsire) have already publicly stated they are backing Clinton over Sanders. If that isn't a pretty clear establishment bias and intention to cock block regardless of the majority opinion, I don't know what is.

 

[Phokus]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09#NH-Dem


Also clinton has 394 super delegates who are voting for her regardless of the outcome. so she is ahead before any elections in the 48 other states.

If Bernie wins the delegate count and the DNC establishment tries to tip the scales with superdelegate votes, that will destroy the democratic party and throw a ton of establishment dems out of congress due to righteous anger. They won't do that, trust me.

 

[K1052]

If Bernie wins the delegate count and the DNC establishment tries to tip the scales with superdelegate votes, that will destroy the democratic party and throw a ton of establishment dems out of congress. They won't do that, trust me.

Given what will probably happen to Sanders in the southern primaries such machinations won't be required

 

[fskimospy]

From what I remember you're correct, historically. If I recall, during the 2008 election the super delegates stated they would side with the majority - and they did.

The difference appears to be that currently the sweeping majority of superdeligates (80% responded by Feb 2nd, so approximately 15% before New Hampsire) have already publicly stated they are backing Clinton over Sanders. If that isn't a pretty clear establishment bias and intention to cock block regardless of the majority opinion, I don't know what is.

I think it might be intended to dissuade people from nominating Sanders, but that's basically the whole point of superdelegates. They were added in specifically to oust primary candidates who aren't competitive general election candidates.

I bet Republicans wish they had more superdelegates right now, haha.

 

[Virge_]

If Bernie wins the delegate count and the DNC establishment tries to tip the scales with superdelegate votes, that will destroy the democratic party and throw a ton of establishment dems out of congress due to righteous anger. They won't do that, trust me.

I don't think it's really such an extreme fire and brimstone scenario. They will likely just vote for Trump. It won't destroy the party, it will likely just change it.

 

[Exophase]

Got a link, Real clear politics says it is 9 to 13 on the delegates.

What what he's referring to is the 6 superdelegates in Hew Hampshire that have currently pledged support for Hillary Clinton. The normal delegates are pledged to vote based on the outcome of the popular vote, while the superdelegates (who are elected politicians and party members) aren't. And of the 712 total 355 have pledged support for Clinton while only 14 have pledged for Sanders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

Since these are all establishment players they have some pressure and inclination to go with the establishment choice and Bernie, having not even ran as a Democrat before now, is very non-establishment, so that works against him in the superdelegate vote.

That said, since a lot of these superdelegates are elected officials I suspect that at least a significant number of them will change their votes to side with the state popular vote if it looks like Bernie is winning (and I suspect a lot that aren't currently pledged will go that way). So I doubt there will be a superdelegate vote that totally upsets the outcome.

 

[Phokus]

Given what will probably happen to Sanders in the southern primaries such machinations won't be required

Well, i hear a lot of black leaders are switching their endorsements in SC to Sanders so we'll see. Also the Latinos in NV are also swinging for Sanders.

 

[Bitek]

A clear victor is who has the most super delegates/delegates. Regardless of what the popular vote is.

So far Hillary has a clear victory.

Yes. It's the way the leadership keeps control of the party so you don't have some random outsider come in and highjack the party. It's something the Rs may be wishing they had this year if Trump or Cruz is nominated.

Sanders is a leftist, but he's not a real Democrat. The party does not have to nominate him, nor does he have to have the party to run for pres, nor is it needed for any voter to vote for Bernie for pres.

Now, as eski notes, will the party go around it's voters if Hillary is highly damaged goods come the nomination convention? Idk, would be very bold move not to follow the voters

 

[Virge_]

I think it might be intended to dissuade people from nominating Sanders, but that's basically the whole point of superdelegates. They were added in specifically to oust primary candidates who aren't competitive general election candidates.

I bet Republicans wish they had more superdelegates right now, haha.

Whatever the intended reason may or may not be, and regardless on arguments of it keeping up with the times - the fact that NH was a staggering 60% for Sanders but the establishment super delegates unilaterally voted for Clinton tipping the scales in her favor in the end speaks volumes for how we can expect the rest of this to play out.

 

[fskimospy]

Whatever the intended reason may or may not be, and regardless on arguments of it keeping up with the times - the fact that NH was a staggering 60% for Sanders but the establishment super delegates unilaterally voted for Clinton tipping the scales in her favor in the end speaks volumes for how we can expect the rest of this to play out.

The superdelegates haven't voted for anyone and they won't until the convention. They aren't pledged. In the unlikely scenario where Sanders wins the majority of the pledged delegates I find it highly unlikely the superdelegates will overturn the result.

 

[Virge_]

The superdelegates haven't voted for anyone and they won't until the convention. They aren't pledged. In the unlikely scenario where Sanders wins the majority of the pledged delegates I find it highly unlikely the superdelegates will overturn the result.

Just curious, willing to make this another $100 bet?

I think the odds are in your favor on this one, I like to take a risky bet.

 

[K1052]

Well, i hear a lot of black leaders are switching their endorsements in SC to Sanders so we'll see. Also the Latinos in NV are also swinging for Sanders.

Until the polls move or he wins one it's just more talk. The polls out of SC are no more favorable to him than they have been AFAIK. Unless he converts huge numbers of non-white voters really soon I don't see a path to the nomination for him.

 

[Phokus]

I don't think it's really such an extreme fire and brimstone scenario. They will likely just vote for Trump. It won't destroy the party, it will likely just change it.

I think Bernie supporters voting for Trump and throwing out congressional democrats on the downticket voting would destroy the DNC.