The pledged count is 1223 to 920. There is only a 303 difference & there are 2129 left to win

[amborin]

this was from someone's comment at the link

bottom line: the nomination process is wide open

Clinton’s current lead of 300 awarded delegates jumps dramatically if superdelegates are added to the mix.

MCCHESNEY: Nancy Pelosi, among others, made it pretty clear that if Bernie Sanders wins the majority of the elected delegates, the idea that the unelected delegates would throw the election to Hillary Clinton, well, that would be a very controversial and dubious move for the party to make. It would in all likelihood to great damage to the future of the Democratic party, really destroy its chances of winning in the November election.

NOOR: With superdelegates off the table, a different picture emerges.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15977

[Garrett78]

1. Superdelegates won't be a factor this year.

The superdelegate talk is much ado about nothing. Clinton isn't going to have any trouble topping 2026 pledged delegates. She's less than 800 away with numerous diverse, delegate-rich states yet to vote. Clinton could easily reach 2200 pledged delegates. She's going to pick up a *lot* of delegates in NY, PA, MD, NJ, CA, WA, WI, etc.

Quite a few folks seem to be unable to separate what they desire to have happen from what will (in all likelihood) happen.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Based on various sources. Green Papers and 538 I would say you are right.

My current projections gives Clinton a 700 plus spread without automatic delegates included.

[revbones]

2. So you're saying

at 50% of the way Hillary is ahead by 300????

Wait!

All her followers say it's impossible for Bernie to overcome 300 delegates with only 50% left!


Something smells fishy here... Hmmmmm. [scratches head]

[amborin]

3. HRC campaign & supporters to Bernie: Drop out now, otherwise you'll win the nomination

[Garrett78]

4. Impossible, no. But far more unlikely than some wish to acknowledge.

As I've said more than once, there are identifiable patterns that aren't going to suddenly get flipped upside down. Most notably the pattern of Clinton doing best in diverse, delegate-rich states and Sanders doing best in small states that lack diversity. 50% is a large enough sample size to say that's a pattern and not merely a random occurrence.

If Candidate A does best in large states and Candidate B does best in small states, Candidate A's lead is going to grow and not shrink. Even if Candidate A's margin of victory tends to be smaller than Candidate B's margin of victory.

So, by the end of this month, Clinton's lead will likely be ~400. And at the end of May her lead will still probably be ~400. But even if her lead is "only" 300 heading into June, Sanders won't catch her.

[revbones]

5. tl;dr: Yes. Bernie can beat Hillary. nt

[Garrett78]

6. Since you didn't actually address any of the points I made, I guess we'll leave it at that.

[revbones]

7. That's why I said "tl;dr:"

I just summarized the drivel there.

[Garrett78]

8. I'm afraid I don't know what "tl;dr:" means.

As for "drivel," feel free to address my specific points.

[revbones]

9. Well, there is Google...

tl;dr

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read

The tl;dr label is sometimes used constructively by an author to introduce a short summation of a longer piece.[3] However, it is all too often invoked as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing, or, worse, a stoop to ridicule.

In case you were wondering, I was using the latter form.

[Garrett78]

10. So, which points do you disagree with?

I'm glad to know it was just ridicule and not that my 3 short paragraphs stretched your attention span limit. Now, feel free to address the points I made, specifically the point about the types of states each candidate does best in--good luck disproving that.

[revbones]

11. Honestly I tuned it out.

And have no interest in going back and trying to dispute what are most likely invalid opinion points that will lead down in a spiral of no benefit to either of us.

[Garrett78]

12. So, you're taking the head in the sand approach, and disputing a post you didn't even read. Wow.

Here:

Clinton does best in delegate-rich states. Sanders does best in small states.

Math.

The end.

[revbones]

13. No, I just know your comments aren't worth the effort.

Experience...

The end.

[Garrett78]

14. Not once have you disputed a point I've made.

Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Peace.

[revbones]

15. Again, with experience in reading your comments, it's unlikely to be worth the effort. nt

[Garrett78]

16. Cop-out alert!!!

"I can't dispute your points, so I'm just going to say attempting to do so 'isn't worth the effort'."

In general, does Clinton do best in diverse, delegate-rich states? Does Sanders do best in small states that lack diversity? Of course the answer to both of those questions is "yes," thus your need to resort to a cop-out.

[Garrett78]

22. Humping on what?

You have not yet made it even remotely clear what exactly you disagree with.

[revbones]

24. Humping on expecting a reply to your opinions.

You posted opinions. I didn't want to waste time refutting them. You seem to think badgering me to dispute your opinions is a worthy use of your time. It's a bit funny, but really kind of sad.

You: "Hey! My opinions are facts you can't refute"
Me: "Don't really want to play your game today"
You: "But really, my opinions matter and you can't refute them"
Me: "Ok. Enjoy that."
You: "Seriously, you just can't prove them wrong"
Me: "Don't really want to."
You: "WHY WON'T YOU GIVE IN TO ME!!! WHAT I SAY MATTERS AND IS ALWAYS TRUE!"
Me: "Don't really want to scroll back and read or play your game right now"
You: "You just can't prove me wrong"
Me: "Don't believe it's worth the effort"
You: "Come on! Prove me wrong!"

and so on.... hence the humping...

This would seem to indicate a problem somewhere, but I'm guessing you won't see it.

[Garrett78]

28. "Pizza is the best food" is an opinion.

Pointing out that Clinton does better in diverse, delegate-rich states is not an opinion. Pointing out that Sanders does better in small states that lack diversity is not an opinion.

No more than pointing out the current delegate totals is an opinion.

[CalvinballPro]

17. What a clown. You put more effort into explaining "Tl;dr" than you did refuting any argument by OP.

[revbones]

19. Spoken like a true clown.

It's easy enough to provide replies of equivalent worth via the My Posts tab, than to get sucked into yet another pointless spiral with trolls that have a history of either just denying everything you say, claiming it's a right-wing smear, or trying to get you to waste time to refute their invalid points.

[Garrett78]

21. I've never used the phrase "right-wing smear."

And I fully understand why people have issues with today's mainstream Democrats, including Clinton.

But there's no use denying reality. In fact, it's harmful. It's best to deal with what is and work to bring about systemic change.

People who suggest Sanders still has a good chance of becoming the nominee are not dealing with reality.

[CalvinballPro]

34. Tl;dr: Thanks for admitting you're a clown.

[mythology]

23. I guess it's good to know that you are intellectually honest enough

To admit that all you have is ridicule of something that you admit you didn't read. In other words, you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.

[revbones]

25. Meh, if that's what you need to take from this

to feel that you got your insult on, you are quite free to do so.

[NuclearDem]

27. "Too lazy; don't respond."

It's a helpful label trolls put on their posts.

[tk2kewl]

20. it's an uuphill climb - Bernie needs 57.11% of the remaining delegates for a tie

And given the way voters are being disenfranchised it's going to be even harder. But it's a fight worth having.

[DrDan]

26. those numbers are wrong with respect to pledged delegates

There are a total of 4,051 pledged delegates.

So 2,026 would be a majority of pledged delegates.

Sanders has 920, and Clinton 1,223 - a total of 2,143.

So that means there are 1,908 left (4,051-2,143).

So to take a majority of pledged delegates, Bernie needs 57.9% of the remaining, and Hillary needs 42.1%.

The 2,129 from the comments takes into account supers.

[Garrett78]

29. That's just your 'opinion'.

[LiberalFighter]

30. The data is wrong.

As of yesterday, the data from Green Papers is as follows:

Clinton: 1228 -- Needed: 798
Sanders: 934 -- Needed: 1092
Spread: 294
Remaining: 1889


Based on available current polling data for 14 states the following delegates would be allocated:
Clinton: 1042 -- Extended Total: 2270
Sanders: 615 -- Extended Total: 1549
Spread: 427 -- Extended Spread: 724

There is no polling data for 11 states and territories with 340 delegate remaining.

[Autumn Colors]

35. Those polls for Michigan were just sooo accurate, though

Primary season still has two more months to go ... polls change, polls are often proven wrong. Seems that a whole lot of people waiting in line for hours and hours to vote just may not be paying any attention to polls and are concentrating on chipping away at that current spread of a mere 294 delegates.

I don't know ... Bernie needs to get 294 delegates out of almost 2,000 and has more than two months for more and more people to get to know him, for his volunteers to phonebank, facebank, and canvass?

How can anyone even think this completely out of his reach?

Again .... needs to get 294 delegates out of almost 2,000 over the course of more than two MONTHS.

[LiberalFighter]

36. He needs more than 294 delegates. He needs 1092 out the remaining 1889.

At this time Obama was 57 delegates ahead of Clinton.

[Gman]

31. I don't know if it's the process or the math

That makes it so difficult for some folks. Probably both.

[Metric System]

32. Math is hard. M'kay.