Potential Scenario Where Super Delegates May Push the Leader over the Top

[Stallion]

"In order to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a candidate must win 2,383 delegates at the national convention (this total is current as of March 11, 2016). Currently, there are expected to be 4,765 delegates at the Democratic National Convention.[7]

There are two basic types of Democratic convention delegates: pledged and unpledged. A candidate is eligible to win a share of the pledged delegates at stake in a state if he or she receives at least 15 percent of votes cast in a primary or the preferences expressed in a caucus, either in a congressional district or statewide. Individuals who are pledged delegates are "pledged" to support the candidate to whom they are allocated. There are expected to be approximately 4,051 pledged delegates at the 2016 convention."

-------
Example: Theoretically, Clinton could lead Sanders by 200 Delegates-2,126 to 1,926 pledged delegates-leaving Clinton 253 short of nomination yet still with a sizeable 200 pledged delegate lead over Sanders. Although we all should intuitively realize this fact-there has been little discussion concerning the fairness of Super Delegates in this scenario. So in a tight election Super Delegates will matter even for the candidate with a sizeable lead



https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

[jeepers]

1. 270 electors to win the presidency

democrats do not win against republicans in the south

those victories in the south and the delegates that came with them will not win even 1 electoral vote for democrats in the GE

All of the electoral votes for the democrats required to win the GE will come from victories in northern states

Bernie has won 9 northen states soundly Hillary has won three barely.

If the superdelegates are true to their mission of finding the stronger candidate then Bernie has shown that he can win nothern states, states that matter, something Hillary will have to do if she is to have any hope at all. She needs to sweep tuesday to stay viable

[Garrett78]

6. Losing states in the primary doesn't translate to losing them in the general.

Demographically-speaking, each state in the Deep South is more reflective of the overall Democratic electorate than each of the states Sanders has won (with the lone exception of Michigan). As I wrote following the Michigan primary, Michigan represents the first reasonably diverse, populous "blue" state primary of this campaign. Some are claiming that Michigan proves Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South, but the sample size is way too small. And it's important to not conflate the Democratic electorate of the Deep South with the overall electorate of the Deep South. Or the predominantly white electorate of New England (home to Sanders) with the overall Democratic electorate.

Time will tell how much Clinton struggles outside of the Deep South. Just as time will tell how successful Sanders can be outside of New England and small caucus states that lack diversity. For now, we have one -- ONE -- data point (Michigan) where the candidates were separated by a mere 18,400 votes (out of more than 1.1 million ballots), so we can't make any determinations one way or another (especially given that it was an open primary, which - unfortunately - is ripe for manipulation). We aren't going to learn much from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. Aside from the fact that hypocritical posters will ignore that those are the reddest of 'red' states (Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska anyone?). But March 15 (Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina) and Arizona on the 22nd will offer more data points. In April, there's New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will determine which narrative more closely resembles reality (Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South vs. Sanders can't win delegate-rich states that are relatively diverse).

It's worth noting that most of the remaining primaries/caucuses are closed, and Clinton won 57-41 among registered Democrats in Michigan.

I would like to think most folks understand the obvious flaw in simply tallying the number of states won, while ignoring how many delegates each state carries and ignoring the margin of victory and ignoring the type of primary it is (open vs. closed).

[reformist2]

2. It is quite possible neither candidate will get over 50% with pledged/elected delegates alone.

The question is really this: do we want the super-delegates voting at all in such a situation???

[cyberpj]

4. NO. They are simply there for when party official believe the people didn't choose who they want.

get rid of them.

[Garrett78]

5. 2 candidates with an odd number of delegates means 1 will be over 50%.

How could one of them not win at least 2026 of the 4051 pledged delegates?

[cyberpj]

3. "Here Comes Another Superdelegate Crisis" - article (Did you know Dems once wanted to drop them?)

snip-

In short, there was a time where the word "superdelegate" connoted a deep, deep dysfunction within the Democratic Party and an intergalactic electoral controversy. Given the fact that the 2008 cycle exposed that the superdelegates could, in the wrong situation, prove to be an undemocratic passel of votes that could supersede the will of primary voters, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Democratic Party pondered doing away with them altogether. So in August of 2010, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee met to ponder the matter.

As Newsweek's Colin Woodard reported at the time, here's how that went:
But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week.

and snip-

Nevertheless, pointing to the way those Democratic Party elites who enjoy voting privileges favor her over Sanders is not a move her campaign advisers should even be countenancing at this point. The basic argument of her candidacy is that the institutions that govern our lives do not need to be torn down, root and branch. Clinton's case is that competent management of existing institutions will help level the playing field. For this reason, she shouldn't be telling voters that the system isn't really rigged against them while simultaneously telling her donors, "Don't worry, the Democratic primary is rigged in my favor."

But for whatever reason, that's where we are right now, and once again, superdelegates are stuck in the spotlight. The Democrats should have just scuttled the superdelegates when they had the opportunity. Alas!

Lots more here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/return-of-the-superdelegates-2016-election_us_56bcea6ee4b0c3c550508660[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/return-of-the-superdelegates-2016-election_us_56bcea6ee4b0c3c550508660|