Let's do some math without the supers, shall we?

[JackRiddler]

As of March 23:

Let's pretend the question is what it should be in a democratic system: Who wins the pledged delegates?

Pledged delegates are the ones actually chosen by voting in primaries and caucuses (and the individual state selection processes that follow). At the convention, pledged delegates must vote for the canditate to whom they are pledged on the first ballot. Supers are free to vote however they like.

Total delegates (pledged and super) = 4763.

Super delegates = 717.

Of the supers, 493 are currently given in media counts as having expressed a preference (467 for Clinton). According to the media counts, in other words, 224 supers have not yet expressed a preference.

Pledged delegates = 4046.
Majority (half of pledged delegates plus 1) = 2024.

Total of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses so far = 1964.

Total pledged delegates remaining = 2082!

Clinton pledged delegates won = 1139.
Needs for majority of pledged delegates: 885.
To gain majority of pledged delegates, Clinton must win 42% of the delegates in the remaining contests.

Sanders pledged delegates won = 825.
Needs for majority of pledged delegates: 1199.
To gain majority of pledged delegates, Sanders must win 58% of the delegates in the remaining contests.

With the supers currently committed to Clinton (467) it is near-certain that during the primary season she will surpass a majority of the total delegates (2382 out of 4763) before anyone reaches a majority of the pledged delegates (2024 out of 4046). At that point the claim will be made that she has "clinched." This will be untrue, because supers can switch and should not be considered counted before the actual convention ballot.

If a candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates, the pressure will be on the supers to respect the decision of the primary elections and caucuses. They would reverse that decision at the risk of destroying the party's chances.

In a close race, the force of this moral argument can be further complicated by the eventuality that the winner of the pledged delegates is not the same as the winner of the (countable) total of individual votes cast.

Basically, Clinton wins cleanly in any scenario where she has the majority of pledged delegates, or is very close. Except that for Sanders to get ahead even by a little bit would require a series of blow-outs that would change the narrative with regard to momentum and electability.

[Cheese Sandwich]

1. I agree with the result and math

I came up with the same result. Another couple members posted the same math too. Recursion was one and somebody else.

Bernie would need to win about 58% of pledged delegates from this point forward to roll into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates.

Now I was working with slightly different starting numbers, using the ones from here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

But yes the 58% is correct as of today March 18.

Also today I started counting superdelegates, and decided that Hillary's lead among the superdelegates is somewhat exaggerated for the reasons I listed here.

Basically if Bernie rolls into the convention with a pledged delegate lead, he would only need maybe 100 superdelegates to swing over from the Clinton side at that point to neutralize Clinton's superdelegate advantage. Well, it depends which way the uncommitted superdelegates break. But it's not hard to imagine 150 or even 200 superdelegates switching sides to align with the winner of the elected delegates.

[JackRiddler]

3. If it's a clean lead for Sanders in pledged delegates...

with a lead in total votes...

and given that this means a long series of impressive wins for Sanders...

the pressure on the supers should be overwhelming not to overturn that in July and risk the election in November.

But those are a lot of ifs!

Sanders has to win very big in Arizona and Utah/Idaho. And absolutely massacre Washington. If he can't do those, you can forget about momentum going into New York. That is flippable from the current ludicrous polling results, but very difficult given the machine and the primary rules here.

This needs some melting down from Clinton's side. Last week she was very good at that, this week she's been... quiet. My view is she needs to keep talking at every opportunity.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. And another thing too that you're right about...

Yes at some point Hillary will get over that magic number 2382 and it will be said she has "clinched" it, even though that will be false, when CNN and NBC and the Washington Post all agree, maybe what is false becomes true at that point. The public perception will be that it's true and that can really hurt Bernie.

[JackRiddler]

4. That can potentially hurt Clinton.

She's clinched, why bother?

Then the more motivated voters win.

We can hope the current "clinch" talk is already working that way.

[Happenstance24]

5. You do realize...

Obama only got over the 2383 hump with super delegates, right? Whoever gets to 2383 becomes the nom, and at that point super d's aren't gonna flip anyway. It WILL be over. Prepare for that.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. But Obama was also in the lead with pledged delegates.

So we're looking to find a path for Bernie Sanders and we see a narrow path open there by getting 2026 pledged delegates and then peeling off some of supers from Hillary. It's a long shot. We'll know a lot more in a month.

[JackRiddler]

10. No.

No one gets to 2383 (or whatever it was in 2008) without supers. Or at any rate, it's unlikely. But no one really gets any supers before the convention, these are switchable preferences.

Because of the practice of including supers in totals before the convention, the false impression is likely to be created (again, before the convention) that Clinton got to "2383" at a point when she will not yet have the majority of the pledged, and can still lose those. See?

We're talking here about who wins the majority of the pledged delegates.

[Happenstance24]

14. They are switchable on paper but if you think very many are actually going to do so

you're kidding yourself. There aren't a ton of super d's that have switched sides over the course of multiple elections let alone in 1 election cycle. She'll get past 2026 easily (Which is half the combined delegates total) and the supers will stick with her. Game, set, match.

[Garrett78]

16. Agreed. The superdelegates won't really be a factor this year.

If Clinton's ahead 2250 to 1800, it's not as if all of the superdelegates (including those who have already committed) are going to opt for Sanders. If it's 2026-2025, who knows what might happen, but Clinton is more likely to reach 2383 pledged delegates than she is to only reach 2026 pledged delegates.

[Garrett78]

6. I'm curious, what do you expect the delegate difference to be after the 4/26 primaries?

After NY, PA, MD and all of the other states that vote between now and the end of April.

I think Clinton will lead by ~400 at that point.

[JackRiddler]

8. I don't expect. We will see.

We should see in a fair and open contest, in which no one is trying to stop it before it's actually over, and in which these considerations of "math" are secondary to the issues.

One side here is trying to make the issues irrelevant by claiming the "math" has already ended the contest (which would not be the case even if it were true).

[Garrett78]

13. I got the impression you were interested in the math.

Nobody has the power to stop the contest, and posts on DU have no bearing on the results. So, with that out of the way, what I'd like to see is someone actually map out the path. People keep posting that Sanders has a path to the nomination, but nobody as far as I can tell is willing or able to map out that path. A couple of posters have created delegate calculators, which are simple to use.

Where is Sanders likely to win? I'd say Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, etc.

Where is Sanders likely to lose? I'd say Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc.

Primaries and caucuses (especially if they're closed contests) become easier to predict as time goes on, because you accumulate more and more data. The demographic divisions (urban vs. rural, racial breakdowns, support among registered Democrats, etc.) start to paint a fairly clear picture. This picture points to Clinton's lead growing, and not shrinking.

[joshcryer]

9. In 2008 there was a superdelegate tie.

But Obama had the majority of pledged + super vote by May. The rest was a formality. Would've taken a seismic shift to move them.

I think it's going to go to the convention like it did then, if only to 1) inoculate Clinton from having to go up against Trump in the media and 2) register more voters and keep people politically active. Unlike 2008, though, Clinton has a massive and insurmountable lead, unfortunately.

[JackRiddler]

11. Yes, now you are describing why Sanders staying in...

is almost certainly good for Clinton, assuming things stay as they are. Inoculation and registration.

Why can't the majority of Clinton supporters see this?

[joshcryer]

12. I support him staying in because we need as many delegates at the convention.

So that we can message the platform and put stuff we need in there. I'm going for marijuana legalization.

But I'm a Sanders supporter so there's that.

I think most Clinton supporters against him staying in are just doing it for snark reasons, to push buttons, and rile people up.

The supers aren't going to decide this thing, they never have, and if it ever came to them doing so the party would be screwed.

[Garrett78]

15. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone is calling for Sanders to drop out at this point.

I do think Clinton's lead will become overwhelming by the end of April, at which point Sanders should give some consideration to stepping aside, so that the focus can be on winning the general election against whatever batsh*t crazy person the Republican Party nominates.

It's common for candidates to drop out before being mathematically eliminated. One can see the writing on the wall.

[joshcryer]

17. The one thread I saw was obvious bait.

I didn't take it seriously.

I don't see Sanders dropping out unless funds dry up, and really, he shouldn't as long as he has a robust campaign. Even if he needs, say, 100% of the pledged delegates in CA to be ahead by one delegate, he should still stay in.

And I think it would be an error for Clinton to claim victory with the superdelegate advantage in that case. Let the media claim it, etc, and unless Sanders concedes, just continue on doing contests until the thing is actually over. And rather than say "I think my opponent has a route to victory, so we're not out of this yet" (which I can fully see Clinton stupidly saying) she'd say "I think that all the states should vote, even if I have a lock on this, all the votes should matter." That's all she has to say.

This guy on reddit convinced me of just how far Sanders is behind. When Super Tuesday 2.0 was ending I thought we had a chance, but that guy lays it out really really well. It's incredibly insurmountable, short of some actual revolution happening.

[JackRiddler]

18. Needs a kick due to newer threads...