Why Washington's other 67 Democratic Delegates Haven't Been Allocated Yet.

[debunction.junction]

Posted at DAILYKOS a few hours ago.

Why Washington's other 67 Democratic Delegates Haven't Been Allocated Yet, and What It Means.

The other 67, yet to be announced, are “congressional district delegates”. According to Washington State Democrats, these are to be pledged proportionally “based on the will of the caucus participants in each of the State's 10 congressional districts”. But those other 67 will not be certified until the state Democratic convention on June 19th; it depends in part on all of the caucus delegates showing up. source: www.wa-democrats.org/...

** If this is how it actually plays out, Bernie will have 49 more Washington delegates than the 25 that national tallies currently show and Hillary will have 18 more than the 9 that national tallies currently show, for a net gain of 30 for Bernie relative to those current national tallies. So one could say that Bernie is “now” only 238 behind Hillary, rather than 268 (that is, 1005 to 1261, rather than 975 to 1238). Still, that’s a lot of catching up to do.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/28/1507279/-Why-Washington-s-other-67-Democratic-Delegates-Haven-t-Been-Allocated-Yet-and-What-It-Means

[DemRace]

1. Little lost...

Why wouldn't these count towards the Sanders total but the Super Delegates are. It's really confusing as the current Super Delegate count is comprised of a series of polls conducted early in the campaign. Most of these Super Delegates said they would vote for Clinton before the first election took place. Just wondering when were the Super Delegates last polled and why are these polls considered as committed votes. I thought they don't vote until July 28th. Am I missing something?

[debunction.junction]

2. Super Delegates have nothing to do with this article.

Bottom line is that Bernie is not going to receive credit for the additional net gain of 30 delegates he won in Washington until after June 7 when all should be decided.

Washington has 101 delegates, but only 37 have been allocated, Bernie 25, Hillary 9. The real number is Bernie 74, Hillary 27.

March 26 was a good day for Bernie. Bernie 104, Hillary 38.

[morningfog]

3. Green papers counts them. WA: 74/27 PDs.

[debunction.junction]

4. Not familiar with Green Papers.

Thank you for bringing them to my attention.

[DLnyc]

6. Yes, Bernie will get 74, Hillary will get 27, a net gain of 47 for Bernie

I have not seen these types of numbers change by more than 1 delegate once the votes have been counted. And even a 1 point shift is rare, from what I've seen. It's true that the delegates won't be allocated until the state convention, but it is apparently easy to see what the results will be from the number of (sub-)delegates going from each congressional district. This is what Green Papers does, and if you scroll down you will see a chart explaining where they got their numbers. You can count on RealClearPolitics updating their numbers to 74/27 in a week or two. This is how it's been going throughout the campaign, Green Papers puts up the numbers within a day or two after the primary, everybody else seems to wait until the attention has shifted elsewhere. All of RCP's older numbers, from March 8 back, now match the Green Papers numbers. I don't know why RCP waits, maybe somebody could ask them.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D

And, using the "Democratic Convention" page at Green Papers, you would get HC 1266 pledged to BS 1038, for a difference of 228.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[strategery blunder]

5. If the media wanted to, they could estimate these delegates now.

Just like they did with the Iowa caucuses. The delegates from Iowa were not formally allocated until very recently, as they had to go through their county conventions and such too.

However, the media does not seem to be doing the same for WA because, let's be honest, it serves their interests to make Bernie's blowouts on Saturday seem smaller than they really were, and by holding out on WA's delegates, they can make the state seem less significant than it (being the 13th most populous in the Union) really was.

[debunction.junction]

8. Bullseye! The media does not want to. Their agenda does not include honesty.

Hence all the face palms.

[BernieforPres2016]

9. But the MSM would rather show an inflated lead for Hillary than to make the simple calculation

and add it into their numbers.

[Chichiri]

7. Actually, 538 has Hillary down to a 230-delegate lead.

That wouldn't surprise me given how well Bernie did on Saturday.

[debunction.junction]

10. Arithmetic over fuzzy math any day.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. It's a way for the party to say he has less delegates than he actually has.

There is a reason I'm not a Democrat anymore.

[debunction.junction]

12. I blame the MSM on this one more than the party, although...

Although it's hard sometimes to see where the party ends and the MSM begins.

The problem with being an Independent in a two party system is that they don't have much say in the Primary process. I believe that all primaries should be open primaries giving all the electorate the opportunity to participate in the political process.

As Bernie says, "We should make voting easier, not harder." That is why I fully support Bernie's proposal that when you turn 18 you are automatically registered to vote, period. If it is mandatory that you register with the Selective Service when you turn 18, you should be automatically registered to vote a the same time. If you can be forced to go to war, as I was in 1969 (#8), then by damn you should be able to vote without jumping through hoops and pledging allegiance to a party. (Off topic, sorry)