Totally out of balance
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
The media is completely ignoring the delegate issue in the Dem primary. Neither Bernie or Hillary are going to "win" enough delegates to secure the nomination. The nominee will be selected by party insiders and lobbyist via the "super delegate" route. It now appears there's a decent chance that the nominees won't be the candidate who won the most delegates for either party.
Last edited:
Google is now showing Bernie 47, Clinton 36, with three more still up in the air. Seems a bit more fair than the initial counts. 47 is 55% of the delegate total, so it's right in line with his votes.
I highly doubt Bernie will go into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, but if he does I will expect that a lot of super delegates will ultimately jump to him. If I were a superdelegate in a close race between two people like this, I like to think I would cast my vote for the one that came in with a majority, at least on the first ballot. Either in my home state or overall, I think either stance is defensible. If it weren't at all close, I would feel free to vote my conscience. In any case, the Republicans have 100 or so "free agents", too. It's not nearly as many as the Dems have, and I agree the Dems need to rein in the liberal allocations of unpledged delegates a bit. The only reason nobody is talking about them on the R side is that they are all party insiders, and so none of them will likely vote for Trump. Thus they won't have any real impact on the first ballot. (Unless Trump pays them off, of course...)
I highly doubt Bernie will go into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, but if he does I will expect that a lot of super delegates will ultimately jump to him. If I were a superdelegate in a close race between two people like this, I like to think I would cast my vote for the one that came in with a majority, at least on the first ballot. Either in my home state or overall, I think either stance is defensible. If it weren't at all close, I would feel free to vote my conscience. In any case, the Republicans have 100 or so "free agents", too. It's not nearly as many as the Dems have, and I agree the Dems need to rein in the liberal allocations of unpledged delegates a bit. The only reason nobody is talking about them on the R side is that they are all party insiders, and so none of them will likely vote for Trump. Thus they won't have any real impact on the first ballot. (Unless Trump pays them off, of course...)
The last numbers I saw where Sanders 48 delegates to Clinton's 43 with 5 of the 10 super delegates still undecided. The five declared supers have all supported Hillary. Pretty good chance that the delegate allocation coming out of Wisc will be 48 to 48.
AH, now I understand where you guys are getting the numbers from. For clarification, I wasn't looking at superdelegates, just pledged delegates.
To be honest, I was looking NBCnews.com and I don't know how they came up with that number, but I assumed it included super delegates. I like to use a Democrat friendly news site, so no one can say "You got that from Fox." Also, that was at 7am Tulsa time and there probably has been some movement since you folks posted at noon or later.
Similar threads
