WWTBAM Bored

The links below are good for those interested in the actual delegate totals to date in the nominations. There are 4763 (2382 needed to win) delegates to the Democratic convention. Of these 4051 are chosen in the primaries and caucuses and 712 are the "superdelegates" who are elected officials and other bigwigs. Hillary has an overwhelming advantage among the superdelegates who have declared, but as happened in 2008, they can change their minds if Bernie appears to gaining momentum. As far as pledged delegates are concerned, after Nevada, they each have 51.

The Republican math is more precise because there are no superdelegates. There are 2472 delegates, of whom 1237 are needed to win. Donald Trump won all 50 delegates in South Carolina (which awards delegates based on the results by Congressional district and statewide) and has 61 delegates to 11 for Cruz and 10 for Rubio.

All the Democratic primaries and caucuses award delegates proportionally, but the rules vary widely in the Republican elections. A number of important states like California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have winner-take-all primaries where even a "strong" second place finish gets you nothing.

Democratic Delegate Totals to Date: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html
Republican Delegate Totals to Date: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html

The superdelegates may become a liability for the Dems if that's what it comes down to to decide the nomination. I have a lot of friends who are Bernie supporters that are saying they will stay home in November if Hillary gets the nomination because of the superdelegates at the convention.

silverscreenselect wrote:The Republican math is more precise because there are no superdelegates. There are 2472 delegates, of whom 1237 are needed to win. Donald Trump won all 50 delegates in South Carolina (which awards delegates based on the results by Congressional district and statewide) and has 61 delegates to 11 for Cruz and 10 for Rubio.

It's now 67 delegates for the pile of moldy pomelo peels drenched in eau de toilette.

Pastor Fireball wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The Republican math is more precise because there are no superdelegates. There are 2472 delegates, of whom 1237 are needed to win. Donald Trump won all 50 delegates in South Carolina (which awards delegates based on the results by Congressional district and statewide) and has 61 delegates to 11 for Cruz and 10 for Rubio.

It's now 67 delegates for the pile of moldy pomelo peels drenched in eau de toilette.

I must say, I admire the care with which you craft posts that are certain to sway those who may be undecided about their presidential vote. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The Republican math is more precise because there are no superdelegates. There are 2472 delegates, of whom 1237 are needed to win. Donald Trump won all 50 delegates in South Carolina (which awards delegates based on the results by Congressional district and statewide) and has 61 delegates to 11 for Cruz and 10 for Rubio.

It's now 67 delegates for the pile of moldy pomelo peels drenched in eau de toilette.

I must say, I admire the care with which you craft posts that are certain to sway those who may be undecided about their presidential vote. --Bob

Yes, he is a vessel of crisp wit, as if freshened by the Island Splash of a Summer's Eve.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz accidentally tells the truth about superdelegates.

The last delegate in Nevada has now been allocated to Hillary Clinton, giving her, the "lead" among regular delegates, 52-51. In 2008, Hillary won the caucus vote by about the same margin as she won this year, but due to the way delegates were allocated, Obama actually wound up with one more delegate in the final tally. Nevada changed its rules this time to try to ensure that didn't happen, and Hillary wound up carrying the state 25-20. By all accounts, she should pad that lead considerably this weekend in South Carolina, where every poll shows her ahead by double digits.

silverscreenselect wrote:The last delegate in Nevada has now been allocated to Hillary Clinton, giving her, the "lead" among regular delegates, 52-51. In 2008, Hillary won the caucus vote by about the same margin as she won this year, but due to the way delegates were allocated, Obama actually wound up with one more delegate in the final tally. Nevada changed its rules this time to try to ensure that didn't happen, and Hillary wound up carrying the state 25-20. By all accounts, she should pad that lead considerably this weekend in South Carolina, where every poll shows her ahead by double digits.

I just checked the current fivethirtyeight.com projections. It looks like she'll come out of Super Tuesday with a very comfortable lead in pledged delegates. --Bob

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, we are going to get a textbook lesson as to why, when you have three or more candidates, our normal method of voting (one vote goes to one candidate) is very possibly going to get the Republicans a nominee that most Republicans don't want.

That wasn't accidental. It was the truth, and only the announcer's snark made it seem like a "shocking admission." Colorado gets 79 delegates, and of those, 13 are super delegates. Even if all 13 were for Hillary, which I doubt, if the grassroots vote is 66 for Bernie, which I also doubt, the Colorado delegation would be overwhelmingly for Bernie.

Schultz was also correct about the grassroots nature of the delegation. If we didn't have super delegates, it would be no problem for Sen. Bennet, Gov. Hickenlooper, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter, etc. to get elected out of the convention. Removing them from the process just removes that complication.

SportsFan68 wrote:That wasn't accidental. It was the truth, and only the announcer's snark made it seem like a "shocking admission." Colorado gets 79 delegates, and of those, 13 are super delegates. Even if all 13 were for Hillary, which I doubt, if the grassroots vote is 66 for Bernie, which I also doubt, the Colorado delegation would be overwhelmingly for Bernie.

Schultz was also correct about the grassroots nature of the delegation. If we didn't have super delegates, it would be no problem for Sen. Bennet, Gov. Hickenlooper, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter, etc. to get elected out of the convention. Removing them from the process just removes that complication.

And why should they be removed?

If that's who the people want, why should they not get the opportunity?

I am aware of all the "justifications" for superdelegates.

They are all wrong.

Jeemie wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:That wasn't accidental. It was the truth, and only the announcer's snark made it seem like a "shocking admission." Colorado gets 79 delegates, and of those, 13 are super delegates. Even if all 13 were for Hillary, which I doubt, if the grassroots vote is 66 for Bernie, which I also doubt, the Colorado delegation would be overwhelmingly for Bernie.

Schultz was also correct about the grassroots nature of the delegation. If we didn't have super delegates, it would be no problem for Sen. Bennet, Gov. Hickenlooper, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter, etc. to get elected out of the convention. Removing them from the process just removes that complication.

And why should they be removed?

If that's who the people want, why should they not get the opportunity?

I am aware of all the "justifications" for superdelegates.

They are all wrong.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, Jeemie. It's hard enough to get elected to National without dealing with the distraction of being elected within the same process as the governor or a U.S. Rep.

Jeemie wrote:Meanwhile, on the GOP side, we are going to get a textbook lesson as to why, when you have three or more candidates, our normal method of voting (one vote goes to one candidate) is very possibly going to get the Republicans a nominee that most Republicans don't want.

That depends on your definition of "don't want." Clearly, 60-65% of the voters in each primary so far have preferred someone else to Trump, but that's not the same as saying they wouldn't support him in a general election. By your definition, all reasonably contested races with three or more candidates will result in a winner that most people don't want.

There are other, more democratic ways, of getting a viable national candidate without putting a most undemocratic process in place that almost assures, with rare exceptions, that non-establishment candidates who nonetheless will be viable nationally get nominated.

Bob78164 wrote: I just checked the current fivethirtyeight.com projections. It looks like she'll come out of Super Tuesday with a very comfortable lead in pledged delegates. --Bob

Hillary is poised to win big in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Every poll in those states has her ahead by double digits, most by 20 points are more (A local poll in Georgia released yesterday had her up by 52 points). Similarly, Bernie rates to win big in Vermont. Bernie may have a better chance in Oklahoma and he's spending heavily there. The most recent poll there had Hillary up by 2. Massachusetts is pretty much of a tossup right now. One poll had Bernie up by 7 and another was tied. In all these states, polls taken before this month are pretty much meaningless since the dynamics of the race have changed.

They are also having caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota. Polling is sketchy and unreliable in caucus states. Hillary got beaten badly in the post-Nevada caucuses in 2008, and she supposedly has better organization this time around. The demographics of Minnesota would seem to give Bernie a good shot there. Colorado has a fairly significant Hispanic vote and both Hillary and Bernie claim they won Hispanic voters in Nevada. However, there hasn't been a single poll in the state this year. There is also a caucus in American Samoa and an election for Americans Abroad, for a total of 13 jurisdictions selecting delegates that day.

Jeemie wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:That wasn't accidental. It was the truth, and only the announcer's snark made it seem like a "shocking admission." Colorado gets 79 delegates, and of those, 13 are super delegates. Even if all 13 were for Hillary, which I doubt, if the grassroots vote is 66 for Bernie, which I also doubt, the Colorado delegation would be overwhelmingly for Bernie.

Schultz was also correct about the grassroots nature of the delegation. If we didn't have super delegates, it would be no problem for Sen. Bennet, Gov. Hickenlooper, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter, etc. to get elected out of the convention. Removing them from the process just removes that complication.

And why should they be removed?

If that's who the people want, why should they not get the opportunity?

I am aware of all the "justifications" for superdelegates.

They are all wrong.

I'm fine with the justification that superdelegates give the party some flexibility in case of a late-breaking story that materially changes things. I agree with Nate Silver that if either candidate emerges from the primary process as a relatively clear winner, the superdelegates will support that winner at the convention, even if they could, by acting in concert, throw the nomination the other way. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Meanwhile, on the GOP side, we are going to get a textbook lesson as to why, when you have three or more candidates, our normal method of voting (one vote goes to one candidate) is very possibly going to get the Republicans a nominee that most Republicans don't want.

That depends on your definition of "don't want." Clearly, 60-65% of the voters in each primary so far have preferred someone else to Trump, but that's not the same as saying they wouldn't support him in a general election. By your definition, all reasonably contested races with three or more candidates will result in a winner that most people don't want.

I should have said "a lesser or least preferred choice".

I prefer one of the several ranked voting methods that are available when there are three or more candidates. Yes- they have their flaws too, but I think by and large they end up more generally reflecting the will of the electorate.

Bob78164 wrote:I'm fine with the justification that superdelegates give the party some flexibility in case of a late-breaking story that materially changes things. I agree with Nate Silver that if either candidate emerges from the primary process as a relatively clear winner, the superdelegates will support that winner at the convention, even if they could, by acting in concert, throw the nomination the other way. --Bob

OK- then changes that should be made is the superdelegates should be barred from announcing towards whom they are leaning while the primary process is going on, AND candidates are prohibited from actively campaigning for their support AND I'd go one step further that there should be a pool of people that will eventually make up the superdelegates, but you don't know who those people are ultimately going to be until the end of the primary process.

Knowing that Hillary has a majority of the suprdelegates' early vote could skew voting in the primaries.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm fine with the justification that superdelegates give the party some flexibility in case of a late-breaking story that materially changes things. I agree with Nate Silver that if either candidate emerges from the primary process as a relatively clear winner, the superdelegates will support that winner at the convention, even if they could, by acting in concert, throw the nomination the other way. --Bob

OK- then changes that should be made is the superdelegates should be barred from announcing towards whom they are leaning while the primary process is going on, AND candidates are prohibited from actively campaigning for their support AND I'd go one step further that there should be a pool of people that will eventually make up the superdelegates, but you don't know who those people are ultimately going to be until the end of the primary process.

Knowing that Hillary has a majority of the suprdelegates' early vote could skew voting in the primaries.

I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would bar at least the first two proposals. As for your final point, at least in this cycle I think it's at least as likely that overwhelming superdelegate (i.e., establishment) support is hurting her margins as that it's helping them.

Particularly when it comes to voting for President (a relatively high-information decision in our political system), I have a lot of confidence that people will cast their votes in a way that reflects their actual preferences.

Now if we're talking about some kind of instant runoff system, that's a whole 'nother discussion. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:'m pretty sure the First Amendment would bar at least the first two proposals.

Um...no it wouldn't.

The First Amendment limits how the government may infringe on your rights.

The First Amendment says nothing about how a political party may set up its nominating rules.

As for her superdelegate majority hurting her margins, I'm not seeing how that might be true.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:'m pretty sure the First Amendment would bar at least the first two proposals.

Um...no it wouldn't.

The First Amendment limits how the government may infringe on your rights.

The First Amendment says nothing about how a political party may set up its nominating rules.

As for her superdelegate majority hurting her margins, I'm not seeing how that might be true.

Because it plays into Senator Sanders's establishment vs. grass roots narrative.

A couple of cases from the Nineteenth Century (both captioned Nixon v. Texas) established that political parties do not have a free hand with their nominating process. Both cases prevented Texas from limiting primaries to white voters. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:'m pretty sure the First Amendment would bar at least the first two proposals.

Um...no it wouldn't.

The First Amendment limits how the government may infringe on your rights.

The First Amendment says nothing about how a political party may set up its nominating rules.

As for her superdelegate majority hurting her margins, I'm not seeing how that might be true.

Because it plays into Senator Sanders's establishment vs. grass roots narrative.

A couple of cases from the Nineteenth Century (both captioned Nixon v. Texas) established that political parties do not have a free hand with their nominating process. Both cases prevented Texas from limiting primaries to white voters. --Bob

Nobody's right to vote is being infringed under my proposals.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:The First Amendment limits how the government may infringe on your rights.

The First Amendment says nothing about how a political party may set up its nominating rules.

As for her superdelegate majority hurting her margins, I'm not seeing how that might be true.

Because it plays into Senator Sanders's establishment vs. grass roots narrative.

A couple of cases from the Nineteenth Century (both captioned Nixon v. Texas) established that political parties do not have a free hand with their nominating process. Both cases prevented Texas from limiting primaries to white voters. --Bob

Nobody's right to vote is being infringed under my proposals.

But the Fourteenth Amendment, no less than the First Amendment, is limited to state action and these cases very clearly held that primary elections are covered. --Bob

I know Bob, but the precedent you stated showed people's right to vote was being infringed.

No one's right to vote is being infringed under my proposal.