Nbadan
04-21-2016, 01:10 AM
Without Bernie capitulating....
Win Democratic Nomination: Hillary Clinton Would To NEED TO WIN 67.9% Remaining Pledged Delegates
~snip~
Which is where Sanders’ view of super-delegates and an open Democratic Convention comes in. First, the basic mechanics of the thing: because Democratic super-delegates remain unpledged until the Democratic National Convention, any Democratic candidate wishing to clinch the Democratic nomination prior to the Convention — a privilege, not a right — is forced to do so via pledged delegates alone. This seeming paradox is of course no paradox at all: super-delegates are supposed to wield no power or influence over the Democratic nominating process until the Party’s summer convention. That’s why even a moderately strong primary candidate would be expected to be able to win without them. Indeed, it only takes 58.8 percent of the pledged delegates to get to this year’s “clinch” mark — 2,383 delegates — which any clear front-runner worth his or her salt should be able to accrue with relative ease. Right now Clinton has 54 percent of the pledged delegates earned in primaries and caucuses (1,432) and Sanders 46 percent (1,219). In other words, it’s a single-digit race that’s been tightening in the national polls for well over a month now. The current average of national polls has Clinton up on Sanders by less than 2 percent. So — likely in vain — Clinton and Sanders are both trying their best to get to 2,383 pledged delegates by the last voting day of the primary season (a day, June 14th, still almost two months off) not only so that super-delegates will become immaterial at the Democratic National Convention but also so that their respective victories would be seen as decisive — and democratic.
~snip~
Of course, the Democratic Party is always hoping no race gets close enough for a unity ticket to become necessary, let alone for the nomination to be decided by Party elders. And yet that’s exactly what’s going to happen in the Democratic race this year, as neither Sanders nor Clinton has any realistic chance of clinching the Democratic Party’s nomination via voted-upon delegates alone. Clinton would need to win 67.9 of the remaining 1,400 pledged delegates to do so, and Bernie Sanders would need to win 83.1 percent of these delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination exclusively via the will of actual voters. Both of these targets are, if not statistically impossible, so beyond the capacity of these two candidates in what is — nationally and state-by-state — at worst a tied race and at best a race favoring one candidate or the other 55 percent to 45 percent that continued discussion of a pledged-delegate-only clinch is without purpose. In a race like this one, the only way to avoid waiting until the Democratic National Convention and seeing how the super-delegates vote on the first ballot is for one of the candidates to concede. It’s what Hillary Clinton, in the midst of a horse-race against an ideologically near-identical opponent, did in 2008, and it’s now what she’s hoping Bernie Sanders will do on June 14th should his 213-delegate deficit (possibly a bit higher, depending upon a last few delegate allocations) not be erased sometime between now and that date.
~snip~
Instead, what Clinton could and should do in this situation is (a) say that Sanders should keep his own counsel on any concession, (b) not declare victory or name a VP nominee, and (c) simply win on the first ballot in Philadelphia. Besides crimping the pageantry of the convention somewhat — forcing a post-first ballot VP rollout — it’s no skin off her back. While taking this position might annoy some of her supporters, who’d like to see her declare victory if she’s leading by even one delegate (pledged or otherwise) after the D.C. primary, she needs to think strategically if she wants to reunify the Democratic Party. And the only way to do that is to let Sanders expose just how broken the Party is. Yes, that’s the paradigm shift we’re in: a paradoxical one in which you have to let something be revealed for all its weaknesses before you can reenergize it. You must allow deconstruction to be total before you can reconstruct hopefully and with solidarity across all factions of the Democratic Party. Mind you, none of this will happen. Clinton is surrounded, excuse me saying it, by idiots who only understand brute force and blind loyalty. They are smug, cynical, and without any principles besides their first one: win at any costs. It’s a Republican ethos from way back, but it’s the way (literally) Hillary was raised, so she and Bill fall back on it whenever they’re embattled. That Republican ethos toward transparency (none of it) and competition (only if ruthless) is actually what Americans are reacting to when they say, in near-historic numbers, that they don’t like Hillary. But I’ll leave off on that, as it’s all way above the heads of her crew. The point is, if he’s the candidate he and most of America thinks he is, Bernie Sanders is not going to concede on June 14th. In fact, he’s not going to concede at all — ever. Even after Hillary Clinton (and the mainstream media) completely unnecessarily declares her victory on June 14th.He will (in this hypothetical I’m drawing) simply lose on the first ballot in Philadelphia and then demand, on the strength of having about 50 percent of the Party behind him, that the Party abolish super-delegates.
That’s right: Bernie is going for broke.
He’s going to demand an end to super-delegates, closed primaries, arduous party registration regulations, long voting lines due to broken or old voting machines, confusing party registration forms and voting ballots, super-PACs, and much more. Then he’s going to tell Hillary that they can form a unity ticket if she (a) helps him enact these Party reforms and (b) agrees to support (and, as titular head of the Party, demand) his nomination to be Senate Minority Leader — or, if November goes well, Senate Majority Leader. Or, he’ll do none of these things. He has every ability to change the course of his story. But the story as he’s telling it now proceeds as I’ve described. And because the story as Clinton is now describing it involves none of these things, I’ll note where her own story ends: in November, with a Trump presidency. Because, contrary to the explicit advice of Mook and Brock and Palmieri, in fact Sanders supporters weren’t joking around when they said that 2016 isn’t 2008. It wouldn’t be the first cliff Hillary’s inner circle has driven her off. But if we play out the Sanders story as it’s currently been written, Sanders, buoyed by his followers — roughly half the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters in America — won’t concede prior to the Democratic National Convention. Indeed, he and his surrogates have been saying precisely that for weeks now, and I’ve been saying it for weeks here, only it was largely scoffed at by the media until it became (as though they’d conceived of it themselves) the top topic of daily discourse on CNN after Trump’s hair and anything his mouth produces.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-is-right-on-super_b_9695718.html
bottom line..."...Democratic super-delegates remain unpledged until the Democratic National Convention, any Democratic candidate wishing to clinch the Democratic nomination prior to the Convention — a privilege, not a right — is forced to do so via pledged delegates alone. .."
Hillary doesn't have the pledged delegates.....
Win Democratic Nomination: Hillary Clinton Would To NEED TO WIN 67.9% Remaining Pledged Delegates
~snip~
Which is where Sanders’ view of super-delegates and an open Democratic Convention comes in. First, the basic mechanics of the thing: because Democratic super-delegates remain unpledged until the Democratic National Convention, any Democratic candidate wishing to clinch the Democratic nomination prior to the Convention — a privilege, not a right — is forced to do so via pledged delegates alone. This seeming paradox is of course no paradox at all: super-delegates are supposed to wield no power or influence over the Democratic nominating process until the Party’s summer convention. That’s why even a moderately strong primary candidate would be expected to be able to win without them. Indeed, it only takes 58.8 percent of the pledged delegates to get to this year’s “clinch” mark — 2,383 delegates — which any clear front-runner worth his or her salt should be able to accrue with relative ease. Right now Clinton has 54 percent of the pledged delegates earned in primaries and caucuses (1,432) and Sanders 46 percent (1,219). In other words, it’s a single-digit race that’s been tightening in the national polls for well over a month now. The current average of national polls has Clinton up on Sanders by less than 2 percent. So — likely in vain — Clinton and Sanders are both trying their best to get to 2,383 pledged delegates by the last voting day of the primary season (a day, June 14th, still almost two months off) not only so that super-delegates will become immaterial at the Democratic National Convention but also so that their respective victories would be seen as decisive — and democratic.
~snip~
Of course, the Democratic Party is always hoping no race gets close enough for a unity ticket to become necessary, let alone for the nomination to be decided by Party elders. And yet that’s exactly what’s going to happen in the Democratic race this year, as neither Sanders nor Clinton has any realistic chance of clinching the Democratic Party’s nomination via voted-upon delegates alone. Clinton would need to win 67.9 of the remaining 1,400 pledged delegates to do so, and Bernie Sanders would need to win 83.1 percent of these delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination exclusively via the will of actual voters. Both of these targets are, if not statistically impossible, so beyond the capacity of these two candidates in what is — nationally and state-by-state — at worst a tied race and at best a race favoring one candidate or the other 55 percent to 45 percent that continued discussion of a pledged-delegate-only clinch is without purpose. In a race like this one, the only way to avoid waiting until the Democratic National Convention and seeing how the super-delegates vote on the first ballot is for one of the candidates to concede. It’s what Hillary Clinton, in the midst of a horse-race against an ideologically near-identical opponent, did in 2008, and it’s now what she’s hoping Bernie Sanders will do on June 14th should his 213-delegate deficit (possibly a bit higher, depending upon a last few delegate allocations) not be erased sometime between now and that date.
~snip~
Instead, what Clinton could and should do in this situation is (a) say that Sanders should keep his own counsel on any concession, (b) not declare victory or name a VP nominee, and (c) simply win on the first ballot in Philadelphia. Besides crimping the pageantry of the convention somewhat — forcing a post-first ballot VP rollout — it’s no skin off her back. While taking this position might annoy some of her supporters, who’d like to see her declare victory if she’s leading by even one delegate (pledged or otherwise) after the D.C. primary, she needs to think strategically if she wants to reunify the Democratic Party. And the only way to do that is to let Sanders expose just how broken the Party is. Yes, that’s the paradigm shift we’re in: a paradoxical one in which you have to let something be revealed for all its weaknesses before you can reenergize it. You must allow deconstruction to be total before you can reconstruct hopefully and with solidarity across all factions of the Democratic Party. Mind you, none of this will happen. Clinton is surrounded, excuse me saying it, by idiots who only understand brute force and blind loyalty. They are smug, cynical, and without any principles besides their first one: win at any costs. It’s a Republican ethos from way back, but it’s the way (literally) Hillary was raised, so she and Bill fall back on it whenever they’re embattled. That Republican ethos toward transparency (none of it) and competition (only if ruthless) is actually what Americans are reacting to when they say, in near-historic numbers, that they don’t like Hillary. But I’ll leave off on that, as it’s all way above the heads of her crew. The point is, if he’s the candidate he and most of America thinks he is, Bernie Sanders is not going to concede on June 14th. In fact, he’s not going to concede at all — ever. Even after Hillary Clinton (and the mainstream media) completely unnecessarily declares her victory on June 14th.He will (in this hypothetical I’m drawing) simply lose on the first ballot in Philadelphia and then demand, on the strength of having about 50 percent of the Party behind him, that the Party abolish super-delegates.
That’s right: Bernie is going for broke.
He’s going to demand an end to super-delegates, closed primaries, arduous party registration regulations, long voting lines due to broken or old voting machines, confusing party registration forms and voting ballots, super-PACs, and much more. Then he’s going to tell Hillary that they can form a unity ticket if she (a) helps him enact these Party reforms and (b) agrees to support (and, as titular head of the Party, demand) his nomination to be Senate Minority Leader — or, if November goes well, Senate Majority Leader. Or, he’ll do none of these things. He has every ability to change the course of his story. But the story as he’s telling it now proceeds as I’ve described. And because the story as Clinton is now describing it involves none of these things, I’ll note where her own story ends: in November, with a Trump presidency. Because, contrary to the explicit advice of Mook and Brock and Palmieri, in fact Sanders supporters weren’t joking around when they said that 2016 isn’t 2008. It wouldn’t be the first cliff Hillary’s inner circle has driven her off. But if we play out the Sanders story as it’s currently been written, Sanders, buoyed by his followers — roughly half the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters in America — won’t concede prior to the Democratic National Convention. Indeed, he and his surrogates have been saying precisely that for weeks now, and I’ve been saying it for weeks here, only it was largely scoffed at by the media until it became (as though they’d conceived of it themselves) the top topic of daily discourse on CNN after Trump’s hair and anything his mouth produces.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-is-right-on-super_b_9695718.html
bottom line..."...Democratic super-delegates remain unpledged until the Democratic National Convention, any Democratic candidate wishing to clinch the Democratic nomination prior to the Convention — a privilege, not a right — is forced to do so via pledged delegates alone. .."
Hillary doesn't have the pledged delegates.....