A Contested Democratic Convention Is Now a Near Statistical Certainty

[imagine2015]

A Contested Democratic Convention Is Now a Near Statistical Certainty
by Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writer
April 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton needs to win 65.3 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid a contested Democratic convention at which she and Bernie Sanders separately plead their cases to the Party’s 714 unpledged “super-delegates.”

Democratic candidates in 2016 need 2,383 pledged delegates to win the Party’s nomination via pledged delegates alone. Barring Senator Sanders dropping out of the Democratic race prior to the New York primary, it is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to hit that mark.

The question, given the above data, is not what percentage Sanders or Clinton will win by in upcoming states, but rather how strong a case each candidate will be able to make to super-delegates, who don’t cast any votes until the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia — the media’s decision to pretend that they do, against the express direction of the Democratic National Committee, notwithstanding.

Right now here’s Senator Sanders’ case to super-delegates, which the media has routinely described as weak:

•He beats every remaining GOP candidate by more than Clinton, per head-to-head national polling.

•His +5.3 national favorable/unfavorable ratings are approximately twenty points better than Clinton’s (-14).

•He currently beats Clinton in national polls of Democrats.

•Counting Arizona, where Sanders won Election Day voting 50.0 percent to 46.5 percent, Sanders has won eight elections in a row. The most losses in a row President Obama ever suffered in 2008 was two.

•He is not under federal investigation. While the current FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server is unlikely to result in an indictment, it could damage her standing among independent voters in the general election. Thus far this election cycle, Sanders has generally beaten Clinton among the independent voters who often decide general elections by between 25 and 35 points.

•National and battleground-state polling show that Sanders would win the nonwhite vote by almost exactly the same margin as Clinton — and in many cases an identical margin — were he the Democratic nominee instead of her.

•Clinton won 60% of the delegates in February, 51% in March, and so far 45% in April, suggesting a campaign that is (and dramatically) losing steam rather than gaining it. Clinton is on pace to either win her home state’s primary by much less than she did in 2008 — when she beat President Obama in New York by 17.1 percent — or even lose the state outright.

•Sanders is a “movement” candidate in the mold of the last two successful Democratic campaigns for President (Obama, Bill Clinton) whereas Clinton is a policy wonk for whom few Democrats have personal affection, much like Al Gore and John Kerry were.

•Because Trump (-35) and Cruz (-21) have favorability ratings so historically underwater the Republican establishment can’t let either of them be the GOP nominee, looking at how the Democratic candidates match up against John Kasich — the most popular politician, by far, now running for President in either party — is worthwhile. Clinton has never beaten Kasich in a head-to-head poll in 2016; Sanders has beaten Kasich in five of the nine head-to-head polls taken in 2016, and averages a 2.7 percent victory over Kasich across all 2016 head-to-head polling.

•Clinton’s favorability rating among Republicans (7 percent) is so low that if she is nominated she will re-unify the Republican Party following a divisive and possibly self-destructive Republican National Convention. Sanders’ favorability among Republicans is twice as high, with ten times as many Republicans saying they don’t know enough about him to form an opinion (suggesting his favorability among registered Republicans could rise to more than twice Clinton’s total). There is no indication of an institutionalized hatred among Republicans for Bernie Sanders, whereas GOP hatred for Clinton — justified or not — goes back twenty-five years.

•Sanders is consistently rated by voters as being more “honest and trustworthy” than Secretary Clinton, almost always by double-digit margins, and this is a critical measure of a candidate’s viability.

Clinton’s case to super-delegates can be summed up as follows:

•She is exceedingly well-qualified for the position, though Senator Sanders is also qualified.

•She has raised substantially more money for individual super-delegates and state Democratic parties than has Senator Sanders, suggesting that she is owed loyalty and electoral fealty by these individuals and Party institutions.

•She would be the first female President, whereas Sanders would only be the first non-Christian, political Independent, or social democrat elected President.

•She will win the popular vote this primary cycle, though much of this popular-vote lead came in non-competitive general-election states (so-called “deep red states”), and in the last primary season super-delegates voted against the popular vote winner — as it turned out, her.

•She is likely (if not certain) to win a majority of pledged delegates, though not enough to clinch the nomination. In blue and battleground states, she will be tied with Sanders in delegates or 1 to 2 percent ahead.

•She’s a neo-liberal rather than a social democrat.

•She’s from a known brand (“Clinton”) in the Democratic Party.

There are likely other arguments for both candidates, but these appear to be the predominant ones.

The full article can be read at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/a-contested-democratic-convention_b_9672328.html?utm_hp_ref=bernie-sanders

[monicaangela]

1. If this happens we will see just how crooked the system is here in the U.S.

[Zira]

97. +1

[itsrobert]

2. Really?

[pangaia]

30. really.

[Gothmog]

106. Denial is not just a river in Africa

ignoring the 400+ super delegates who are committed to Clinton is really sad but funny

[Fast Walker 52]

110. wow, I don't know why this is so hard to understand-- THEY CAN SWITCH

as in 2008.

[Gothmog]

121. Super delegates are most concern about the party as a whole

Sanders is not electable and would kill down ballot candidates. Sanders plan to raise taxes would kill down ballot candidates http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus' annual retreat here, Pelosi sidestepped a question about the growing concerns of fellow Democrats over the impact Sanders could have on 2016 House and Senate races, saying, "I'm very proud of all three of our candidates."
But the top House Democrat didn't mince words when it came to Vermont Senator Sanders' health care proposal, dismissing the notion of a single-payer health care plan, curtly saying, "That's not going to happen."

[Fast Walker 52]

125. Oh FFS, if Sanders wins the nomination, he is electable. He is as electable as Clinton if not more.

I can't believe you are pulling out that canard.

[Gothmog]

130. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders

I do not believe that Sanders is electable and I know that Sanders is very vulnerable to attacks. Sanders has not been vetted and Sanders would not do well in a general election contest despite the silly match up polls Sanders supporters keep on citing https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[Fast Walker 52]

139. there are plenty of reasons that the Dems would be insane to nominate Clinton

she is easily portrayed as corrupt and beholden to Wall St.

she is easily portrayed as a liar and duplicitous politician

she is easily portrayed as a warmonger, part of the Iraq, Libyan, Syrian, Honduran disasters.

she is seen as scandal ridden, and could be indicted by the FBI

her administration will be a constantly attacked by the GOP in the same terrible politics we've had -- there's no hope of any real change

she is not an inspiring speaker

she has high unfavorable ratings and a lot of people just don't like her.

[Gothmog]

142. Sanders' attack ads write themselves

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[Fast Walker 52]

144. sigh... you really need to get out of that old, moldy way of thinking

times have changed, and people are fed up.

You might want to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/why-im-supporting-bernie-sanders.html?_r=2

[Gothmog]

145. I live in the real world

It is a nice place.

[hedda_foil]

147. Fine. What makes her more electable in the GE?

Why would more independents vote for her than would vote for Sanders. Just saying it doesn't make it so, nor does chanting it as a mantra. The Democratic party vote is not anywhere near enough to elect a president without a substantial number of independents voting for the Dem candidate. That's true even if all the Dems who are registered vote for her. So in practical, pragmatic terms, just exactly how is she more electable?

[pangaia]

122. I am not in denal, sad nor being funny.

Insult somebody else.

[Gothmog]

143. You are ignoring the facts here

Clinton has more than sufficient votes from super delegates to avoid an open convention. The degree of denial and magical thinking involved in believing that the super delegates are not going to vote for Clinton amuses me. Thank you for the laughs

[putitinD]

3. Bernie Sanders 2016

[COLGATE4]

132. Wow! You've convinced me with your

incisive logic and command of the facts.

[UMTerp01]

4. NOAP!!!! n/t

[LonePirate]

5. There will be no contested convention. The SDs will side with the pledged delegate leader after DC.

The SDs will not select the candidate who does not win a majority of pledged delegates. They will not overturn the will of the voters, regardless of which candidate that is. Abramson's wishful thinking is akin to lunacy.

[4ricksren]

21. so you're saying that the superdelegates should also be counted proportionately?

in the states where bernie won the popular vote -- you're now saying
that the superdelegates should vote for bernie in proportion to the
pledged delegates?

by that logic, bernie is pretty close in superdelegates, since he's not
that far back in pledged delegates

[LonePirate]

36. It doesn't matter. SDs are largely irrelevant.

Even if the SDs allocate themselves proportionately or to the winner of their states or CDs, Clinton still maintains a delegate lead. It doesn't matter because the majority, if not all, of the superdelegates will side with the majority winner of pledged delegates.

I honestly do not know why people are so hung up on superdelegates. They do not change the outcome of the elections during primary season. Whichever candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates will win the nomination no later than the day after the DC primary in June.

[4ricksren]

39. then why did hillary have hundreds of superdelegates before even one primary vote was cast?

the whole reason the dnc added superdelegates is to over-ride the will
of the people and vote for who is most electable, e.g., not a mcgovern, et. al.

otherwise, why have them at all -- and why did hillary have so many
superdelegates before even one primary vote was cast?

you can't have it both ways: either dump the superdelegates or
let them vote as they wish, regardless of pledged proportions

n'est pas?

[Samantha]

63. Someone posted an article here that Bill Clinton had strong-armed superdelegates

before the primary even started to commit to supporting Hillary Clinton. I did not save the article, but I remember it distinctly (even the words "strong-armed&quot . I could not help but wonder what he used for leverage.

Sam

[apcalc]

127. Well then

It must be true.

[COLGATE4]

133. Did you ever wonder if it were true?

[Samantha]

148. I thought it was amazing that so many super-delegates had committed to Hillary before the first vote

was cast. Certainly (IMHO) there must have been some impetus. Otherwise, why the early rush?

The DNC lined up several southern states to vote very early in the process because it knew these states would probably go to Clinton. At that stage of the game, a YUGE percentage of people had not even heard of Bernie Sanders, and the MSM was still in the process of The Big Ignore, which of course hurt both Sanders and O'Malley.

Those huge Southern state wins coupled with hundreds of super-delegates lining up early to commit to Hillary were the ingredients the Clinton campaign needed to keep promoting the Hillary is inevitable assertion.

So I think the odds were pretty good this was a legitimate effort made by Bill Clinton to promote Hillary's chances, but I certainly have no proof.

Sam

[COLGATE4]

150. You've got to remember that the SD's are very long term

members of the party. They've been through election cycles, both boom and bust and I'm sure that each and every one believes s/he knows what's best for the party in the 2016 GE. So, given that, I'm not at all surprised that many of them focused on Hillary as a candidate, beginning in 2008. Obama surprised a whole lot of people, including the SD's but now his term is over and it's only logical that they would once again consider Hillary. While I don't doubt Bill has done his fair share of arm-twisting and cajoiing, these are long term players who are thinking not only about 2016 but 2020 and 2024. If they thought she wouldn't be able to get the job done they would have shown enthusiasm for another candidate, whether that be Bernie, more likely O'Malley. But they didn't. And some Bernie supporters' insinuations that these SD's were not doing this out of conviction but because they have been bought (or extorted) is absurd,

[Samantha]

152. Well, I read the list of super-delegates and I was surprised to see lobbyists on that list

Super-delegates are usually described as people such as retired Congressmen and women who served for a long-time, established, respected party members, governors -- never did I dream a lobbyist would make that list.

I don't think the idea is absurd that super-delegates could be bought or bullied by Bill Clinton, but perhaps that just makes me a bit more cynical than you.

Sam

[LonePirate]

65. I think they should be dumped because they serve no purpose.

I'm not sure why you are arguing in favor of allocating them proportionately or on a state winner take all basis. It does not matter how they are allocated as there is no method that puts them in Bernie's column in large enough numbers for him to have more total delegates than Hillary.

[KPN]

78. I agree they should be dumped.

A Party structure that needs Superdelegates to control the outcome of primaries is a Party that does not represent its members.

[LonePirate]

80. The outcome is the same with or without SDs. They do not control the outcome.

[KPN]

84. So you are saying that if Bernie had more delegates at the end

the SDs would favor him in the same proportion?

Has this always been the case in the past?

[mythology]

87. There has never been an instance where the super delegates overruled the primary process

with the current incarnation of the primary process. In previous eras many states didn't have primaries and the candidates were selected by the party at the convention.

The super delegates are a useless entity as they can't overrule the pledged delegates barring a candidate being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy as the saying goes.

[LonePirate]

93. Yes. Whichever candidate wins the majority of pledged delegates will be the nominee.

The SDs will flock to that person because if they were to side with the candidate who was not preferred by the voters, there would be hell to pay. Calls of subverting democracy and all sorts of protests would erupt at the convention and it might make 1968 seem peaceful by comparison.

[Loudestlib]

91. Don't be fooled by the icon. This person is a Hillary supporter.

[LonePirate]

94. My vote for Bernie last month proves otherwise. I simply haven't swallowed the kool-aid like others.

[bvf]

95. And definitely not the only one who

thinks that merely slapping on an avatar fools anyone.

There are a few like this around. Cheap tactic.

[Califonz]

103. Side with a candidate that keeps losing primaries and is under threat of indictment?

Not to mention the fact that GOP voters will turn out in droves to vote against her.

[LonePirate]

115. So you would prefer the SDs back the candidate who does not win the majority of pledged delegates?

You want the SDs to overthrow the will of the voters? Stop to think for a second what that would say about our democracy if a few hundred elites were to anoint the loser of the primary race. Have you considered how utterly stupid and damaging that would be? There would be chaos in Philadelphia. The "winner" would lose the support of the majority of Dem voters in the GE and I guarantee you that person, be it Bernie or Hillary, would get destroyed in November.

Is that what you want?

[cantbeserious]

6. Bring It On

eom

[dsc]

7. Assuming that Hillary has the most pledged delegates and the most votes

the strongest pro Hillary argument is that it would be a gigantic fuck you to black voters in particular for white elite superdelegates to overturn their votes to give yet another white man (he would be the 44 out of 45) the keys to the White House. Why on earth anyone thinks those voters would show up to vote after that is beyond me.

[imagine2015]

17. Black voters will also remember that it was Hillary who tried to stop Obama from being nominated.

Did you forget that little fact?

[sasmath]

35. And once he was nominated

She supported him wholeheartedly, encouraged her voters to vote for him....
Now that takes guts and character to admit defeat and then work to get him elected.

[imagine2015]

48. Let's hope she has the same approach when Bernie is nominated.

Bernie has already made it clear he will support Hillary if she captures the nomination

[KPN]

82. Of course she did -- after negotiating her post in the administration.

Hillary didn't do that just for the good of the Party.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

120. No, it merely takes Potomac Fever. n/t

[COLGATE4]

134. Which is why they overwhelmingly support her in

every primary?

[TM99]

58. Wow, so your whole argument rests on

identity politics.

And apparently now the SD's are just white elites that I literally thought y'all just love.

And now this sounds like 'blackmail' but y'all get pissy if independent leftists say why should we turn out to vote for Clinton.

I just love the spin from your side of the aisle!

[uponit7771]

60. Nope, the whole argument rest on what's right and what's fair not some made up bullshit from the op

[KPN]

83. The Pot loves to call out the kettle doesn't it?

[dsc]

108. yes how dare a group of people who literally were denied any say at all

for all but 30 years from the 1600's until 1964 have a problem with having their votes stolen from them? And let's be blunt that is exactly and precisely what many Bernie supporters, including his campaign manager, have suggested should be done. His campaign manager was quite specific about which states shouldn't count and all but 1 of them had a majority or plurality black vote in our primary. Why, oh why would blacks be suspicious that it is all about the fact they finally got a say? I have no idea.

[TM99]

128. You are fucking hilarious.

Stolen now? Just cut it out. This is a ridiculous argument. Because what about all of the AA voters in other states that went for Sanders. What about the white votres? The Latino voters? And my personal favorite, the minority that has been ignored the most this election season, what about the Asian voters?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yup, both parties, get your popcorn, get your popcorn

should be fun... ain't change elections lovely?

[Dragonfli]

16. Those were the most fun to read about regarding history, because of the many unpredictable

things that happened and how varying groups reacted (unpredictable from their perspective in time anyway, I never believed in spoiler avoidance and read chapters ahead quite often).

We are indeed living in interesting times, and I am using the phrase as the Chinese might.
I do not think that in a change election with such an establishment enraged population, much can be predicted well, if at all.

Get out the popcorn is right, it may be the last greatest show in political history before we all finally realize we are doomed as a species unless a very favorable series of randomized events happen in just the right way to prevent what has become inevitable if things were to stay the same or worsen regarding our actions that affect the biosphere.

After this show, the next most likely big show involves panic, wars over basic things like water, and desperation in the face of extinction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Yup

But there is so much Cassandra can do. The best part is that both of us have seen this train coming, but many are still in deep denial. I guess the headlight is still distant

[Dragonfli]

52. Off topic, but earlier today, you were mentioned favorably and quoted today on the

Thom Hartman show. I heard your name and smiled as he read part of your post and expressed your point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. That is twice in two days

Thom should read what we posted about the Panama Papers yesterday

[Dragonfli]

57. Perhaps he will, I bet if you called him on air, his producers would put you right through! /nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I got no interest

I called him when we had a hunger strike outside one of our local hotels. It lasted the full week.

So after that... no interest.

Immigration and labor organizing issues, as well as incredibly harsh working conditions were part of it.

[Dragonfli]

66. I get that, I know that if I called he wouldn't take my call, I am far less unbiased as you

regarding the candidates as you maintain a more neutral position as a journalist. You may favor one policy over another, but no one can fairly accuse you of endorsement. My real name is known to hundreds online connected to my screen name, because I always use the same online handle even at places where I have posted some of my OP EDS and LTTE's.

I doubt he is aware of the connection, but if I talk about DU he is smart enough to connect the dots certainly if I bring up my posts. I do not fear people, so don't worry too much about anonymity, I Really am too poor and in poor health, enough so that I really don't have anything to lose thus fear is not an issue. My identity is quite well known to many.

I did get some hate mail from the Conservative Cave, but they only amused me, they write like 8 year olds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Oh they write some of the best fanfic ever

They got good imaginations

[COLGATE4]

135. Read your Bible!

[MFM008]

9. wont happen

He loses NY he will lose all the rest.

[Aerows]

38. He wins New York

Then what?

[morningfog]

44. He'll be the nominee.

[COLGATE4]

136. He still won't be the nominee. nt

[imagine2015]

10. Hillary super delegate explains why she flipped to Obama at 2008 convention

After leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in superdelgates, the reasoning for these party bosses leaving Clinton was summed up by an Arizona Democratic Party official quoted in The New York Times:

“Senator Barack Obama is strengthening the Democratic Party by bringing in new voters, young and old, into the process,” Ms. Fernandez said in a statement released by the Obama campaign. “ I believe Senator Obama has the best ability to win the White House in November and lead this country forward.”

.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, imagine.

[rhett o rick]

12. Left out of the Clinton case was that "Goldman-Sachs really wants H. Clinton" nm

[BKH70041]

13. Not Really

The bosses control both political parties and if they don't want you to win, you aren't going to win. When has any of this ever been a secret to anyone willing to open their eyes? Having said that, this is hardly ever an issue because both parties usually have several running for the nomination of whom the bosses would accept, but this year is different. The Republican bosses don't want Trump and the Democratic bosses don't want Sanders, so they aren't going to be the nominees.

Yeah, it'd be romantic to think that it would be the choice of members of the party who the nominee will be, but the Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations, the bosses have a lot of money and power at stake, they've spend years and years getting to where they are, and they aren't going to give it up without a major fight. And they make all the rules and they'll change the rules if it doesn't suit them. This is no secret. It never has been. If you voted for the Democratic Party all your life, you supported this system whether you want to admit it or not.

The question is how many of you just recently figured it out or paid enough attention to now understand? Because if you haven't and it's suddenly a surprise to you, you're the only one there is to blame for not knowing how the system has worked for a damn long time.

Hillary will be the nominee. It's her turn. In 2008, the Democratic Party told women it wasn't their turn yet. They aren't going to do it again. Secretary Clinton will be the nominee. It's already been decided.

[basselope]

33. I wonder if they will learn the error after they use the GE?

[BKH70041]

68. Use the GE?

You mean "lose"?

The control of the party is bigger than any one election. Or two elections. Or three. Or more.

The party bosses have power beyond what the majority of you here can even begin to comprehend, that's become abundantly clear.

[basselope]

69. Yes, if they choose her, they are sure to lose the GE.

So, I wonder if they will learn after that.

[BKH70041]

72. Winning isn't everything.

It's not even the only thing.

Face it, the bern is out. The owners of the party said No.

[basselope]

79. Well.. that hasn't happened yet.

And if he is out and they lose as a result, the party will have to find new leaders.

[Zira]

98. The people say NO and it will be the party that is out if they continue going against the people,

and I mean the day of the contested convention. Expect a mass exodus if they do that.

There are articles that the exodus has already started because of their corruption.

Hillary can't win the GE no matter what. She has to have the independent vote to win and they can't stand her.

[LarryNM]

104. For Better or Worse a good chance of Ending Two Party Rule

will be the the Election of a self-funded Independent like a Perot or Bloomberg.
Attempts to stop such a President by the parties will simply hasten their demise.
That President may or may not have Progressive support.

[rjsquirrel]

86. You, however

see more clearly than us benighted sheeple, nyet tovarish?

Lol. Exactly what's so silly about the seminar Marxism of the hipster left, which I predict won't vote because in the end it never does.

There is no man behind the curtain. We are him. They are us. Reality is much harder than fantasy but has the advantage of being real.

[DanTex]

14. Seth Abramson. LOL.

[imagine2015]

18. Hillary Clinton, the former Senator from Wall Street. Just what we need. LOL

[Fast Walker 52]

112. why does he make you LOL?

[DanTex]

113. He's got a long history of writing loony pro-Bernie articles that do silly things with numbers.

He's an assistant professor of English who evidently has no qualifications whatsoever in math or statistics, and it definitly shows in his analyses.

[Fast Walker 52]

116. while I wish he'd showed his calculations

the rest of the piece made sense.

[DanTex]

117. It's absurd to call a contested convention a "statistical certainty".

Statistically, the overwhelmingly likely outcome is that Hillary ends up with more pledged delegates than Bernie, but not enough pledged delegates to win the nomination "outright". But that doesn't equate to a "contested convention". In 2008, Obama was in exactly the same situation, but there wasn't a contested convention.

What is actually going to happen is that once Hillary secures over 50% of the pledged delegates, she's also going to get a majority of the superdelegates voting for her (A) because most supers are already on her side and (B) because supers aren't going to switch to Bernie to override the will of the electorate. So it will be an easy win for Hillary. Whether the convention is technically "contested" or not depends on whether Bernie decides to endorse her before the convention or wait until after. But, that technicality aside, the nominee will be determined before the convention.

The only way we get a "contested" convention is if Bernie catches up in pledged delegates. Then, the supers that have endorsed Hillary have to decide whether to stick with Hillary, or whether to switch over to Bernie and follow the will of the electorate. That could get a little hairy, especially if Bernie is only ahead by a handful of pledges, because most supers think Hillary is a better candidate, and many are elected officials who don't want to be running down-ballot with a socialist running on a platform of massive tax hikes and a government takeover of healthcare.

But that scenario is highly unlikely.

[sadoldgirl]

15. If this should happen, Obama will step in on her

behalf. He already shows signs in that direction.

That is one part only though.

Should we have a contested convention, make no
mistake: The party will split, no matter what.

At that time it would be way too late to talk
about party unity.

[Hydra]

28. He's already used some of his powder on that

Including today from what I heard. Should be interesting to see if that gives any wind to her sails.

And I am also foreseeing a split party regardless of what happens now.

[msongs]

43. the outsider who tried to hijack a party after 73 yrs of ignoring it will go back to the senate nt

[COLGATE4]

137. And continue to do what he's done for the last 20-odd

years - offer amendments.

[jcgoldie]

19. new movie idea: Superdelegates... the story of the Sanders campaign

It's a complex coming of age story... watch as they go from vicious undemocratic tools of the party elite bent on overturning the will of the people to America's only hope of saving us from the ignorant stockholm syndrome abetted hoi polloi. Awesome.

[morningfog]

45. They are undemocratic, but they are there. So might as well

Try to use them.

[Dragonfli]

56. The super power origin stories will be most interesting and will involve radioactive money!

Much like Parker and how he got his powers from a radioactive spider, or the Hulk when he got his strength from Gamma rays. Not as action packed as the Marvel movies, but interesting in the way the "House of Cards" series is.

[Trenzalore]

20. There was no contested convention in 2008

There won't be one in 2016. The person who has the most pledged delegates will be the nominee.

[4ricksren]

25. i believe the superdelegates vote on the first ballot with the pledged delegates, thus

correct me if i'm wrong, but since the superdelegates vote on the
first ballot with the pledged delegates -- they are free to change their
minds at any time: otherwise why have superdelegates at all?

i believe that's how obama won: by gradually flipping the superdelegates

[RandySF]

27. They didn't even call the full roll

He was nominated by acclimation.

[Trenzalore]

29. with Hillary entering his name into Nomination nt.

[morningfog]

46. 2008 wasn't contested because Hillary conceded.

She could have contested it.

[Trenzalore]

107. Yes Hillary did the honorable right thing

If Bernie doesn't do the same he should be stripped of all his committee assignments after he loses the battle.

[morningfog]

119. That's absurd. He has every right to stay in unless and until

th convention floor vote.

Whether he does or not is his call.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

22. Dream on...

[Joe the Revelator]

23. One can hope.

[shadowandblossom]

24. You're entitled to your own opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

That hasn't stopped you though.

[RandySF]

26. The English Professor needs to visit the Math Department

[imagine2015]

31. Do wish to challenge anything written in the article?

If so, please state your opinion.

I'm listening.

[RandySF]

32. At some point

One's homework becomes such a pile of garbage that the only thing left is toss it in the recycling bin.

[imagine2015]

49. So the answer is no. You can't challenge anything written in the article.

That figures.

[anotherproletariat]

34. A professor of English? That's always who I go to first for my political news... nt

[brooklynite]

37. Oh Bernio! Oh Bernio! Wherefore art thou?

[Barack_America]

40. Have you read many English PhD dissertations?

I'm guessing not.

[okasha]

61. I'm guessing you haven't read any.

Also guessing that Abramson's was on composition theory, which could put the makers of Ambien out of business if they could only find a way ro market it.

[Barack_America]

64. Wrong. When I was doing my PhD, my closest group of friends...

...were English PhDs, and every one of their dissertations touched on American politics.

They know this shit, and they've read all of the primary sources.

Did you think they just read about Shakespeare?

[okasha]

70. I've read my share.

Proofread for several friends. Now you can "touch on" American politics depending on your critical framework--Marxist, feminist, etc.-- or by dealing with an explicitly political writer--James Baldwin, Hilda Doolittle, Ezra Pound. But the kind of analysis in this limp little article is generally best left to the poly sci folks,

[4ricksren]

41. you can't have it both ways: the PURPOSE of superdelegates was to override the will of the voters

the whole reason the dnc added superdelegates is to over-ride the will
of the people and vote for who is most electable, e.g., not a mcgovern, et. al.

otherwise, why have them at all -- and why did hillary have so many
superdelegates before even one primary vote was cast?

you can't have it both ways: either dump the superdelegates or
let them vote as they wish, regardless of pledged proportions

n'est pas?

[imagine2015]

50. A major purpose of the super delegates is to protect their own asses by supported whichever ....

candidate they think has the best chance of winning the Presidential election and stopping a political disaster for their party if pledged delegates support a weak candidate.

Most are elected office holders and they will get off the Titanic. They won't go down with the ship!

[Recursion]

89. Well, no, the purpose was to prevent a plurality candidate from getting the nomination

when that candidate had fewer votes than "not that candidate"; basically to prevent another Carter. Right now twice as many Republicans have voted against Trump as have voted for him, but they don't have superdelegates in the sense we do to prevent a plurality candidate from overriding the majority will against him.

I think Jim Hunt who invented our super delegate system in 1982 didn't foresee the modern trend of primaries quickly winnowing down to two candidates; a trend under which the supers make a lot less sense.

[LuvLoogie]

96. Clearly the majority of Democrats want Hillary as their Democratic candidate.

Some Democrats and a good number of Independent and Right-wing crossover voters have selected Bernie. Wisconsin's high percentage of Bernie voters not voting Democratic down ticket, and many actually voting for Bradley in the Supreme Court race, illustrates this.

Ohio's outcome is the exception that proves the rule that in open primaries, Bernie is aided by voters who are not Democrats. Those crossover voters stayed home with favorite son John Kasich.

I would welcome the ending of Tad Devine's superdelegate regime if we also change the caucuses to Primaries and close the Democratic primaries to Democrats only getting to vote for their Democratic candidate. 6 month deadline to indicate party for primary elections. Same day registration for general elections.

[4ricksren]

100. all primaries should be open

closing primaries to all dems or all repubs will quickly cause a four-party system!

most people wont register for the parties, and splinter parties will emerge for tea partiers, trumpettes, berniacs, cruz controllers, etc.

the only reason trump is republican, is for the free national debate exposure -- and with the internet social media and 24/365 news flow: eventually the national networks will become even less influential

once republican and democratic splinter parties can be financed by the internet populace (like bern's prototype people's campaign), then people like trump, and the tea party, will still have enough national exposure to prevent either dems or repubs from holding a majority (even less than now, where both parties hover below 40% of the voting populace -- and LESS of the total taxpaying/total populace)

the two party system is a vestige of the era when votes were pony-expressed across the country for months

the problem with new-millenium politics will be DATAGATE, i.e., how to accurately count all the votes electronically

as stalin said: WHO votes is ultimately less important than who COUNTS the votes.

debbie wasserman's nephew is the ceo of the company that contols bernie's data! and dws was hillary's last campaign's co-chair

who knows how many firewalls were breached by hillarys campaign futzing with bernie's dnc-database. there is no ultimate conrol of data anymore. it's too abstruse to regulate accurately

this doesnt even include republican registration, suppression, and black-box shenanigans in the general elections

as einstein once said: "world war iv (4) will be fought with sticks and stones."

[LuvLoogie]

102. The two party system is a result of our constitutional process of passing legislation

and the separation of powers. There is a natural coalescing of voting blocs into two main factions. Third parties don't survive because they have to join coalitions legislatively. Bernie caucuses with the Democratic because he would have no influence otherwise. The only reason he can stay relevant in the Senate is because of the collective strength of the Democratic party.

Opening who we select to people who have no interest in our long-term Democratic solidarity is a recipe for weakening our party, our platform and our numbers. If Democrats don't turn out in our primaries enough to then overwhelm the crossovers undermining us, then we lose.

We as Democrats have to solve our tendency to not come out during the Congressional elections. And Democrats come lately need to take the long view and not dismiss those who have been in the trenches for decades.

[Fast Walker 52]

114. it's only to override the will of the voters if the voters do something stupid

like choose a bad candidate such as Hillary.


Or in the case of the GOP, Trump. Too bad the GOP doesn't have super-delegates-- I'm sure they wish they had that system.

[taught_me_patience]

47. Crackus maximus

Or Bath salts. No way in hell this happens.

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. Clinton will have a majority of pledged and superdelegates.

It will be no contest.

[BlueStateLib]

53. Supers vote on first ballot (4-12-2016)

(4-12-2016)

4,765 total delegates
4,051 pledged delegates
714 superdelegates

2,383 needed for nomination
2026 pledged delegates needed for pledged delegates majority
1,672 pledged delegates still available (4-12-2016)

1304 hillary pledged delegates received
722 (43.18%) needed of the pledged delegates still available for majority of pledged delegates

1075 bernie pledged delegates received
951 (56.87%) needed of the pledged delegates still available for majority of pledged delegates

[RandySF]

54. Making a case is not statistical data

There is no math. Just scenarios rationales. What a quack

[oberliner]

62. It definitely is not

If Hillary is ahead in pledged delegates, the super delegates who promised to vote for her will vote for her and she will be the nominee.

[hellofromreddit]

67. It technically is a contested convention if nobody passes 2383

It's a contested convention if neither candidate gets over the magic number before the convention. An almost-immediate vote to choose one over the other doesn't actually nullify the "contested" part.

No supers can vote before the convention, so they won't change that scenario.

[oberliner]

75. Fair enough

Thanks for clarifying.

[imagine2015]

88. Super delegates who promised to vote for her will unless they change their minds and vote for Bernie

[giftedgirl77]

73. Bernie Math

[NuclearDem]

74. Move over H.A. Goodman.

[zappaman]

76. "Statistical certainty"

[Bread and Circus]

77. If she wins the popular vote and delegate count (even if not a clinch) then I want the supers...

to stay with her. I think the person who wins the popular vote and the majority of delegates should be the nominee, full stop.

However this is one statement I want to call out:

•She has raised substantially more money for individual super-delegates and state Democratic parties than has Senator Sanders, suggesting that she is owed loyalty and electoral fealty by these individuals and Party institutions.

^^^ This has been shown to be a rather unethical "buying" of superdelegates via a money laundering system that is really for Clinton which was funded by fat cat donors. She bought those supers and thus I think this is an example of why I couldn't happily vote for Clinton, ever. It is exemplary of how this nomination process has been rigged in her favor, bordering on cheating.

[BainsBane]

81. Sadly, the English prof is bad at math

and logic. His personal assessment of her has absolutely nothing to do with the party's rules of nomination. The nominee needs 2383 DELEGATES, not 2383 pledged delegates. The pledged delegates are already going to the candidate who wins both the majority of earned delegates and the majority of the popular vote. Clinton currently leads on both those counts, and articles like these show that Sanders supporters know he will not. They then turn to arguing that the votes of the majority don't really count and that they--the self entitled white-upper middle class and middle class--by virtue of their sense of superiority, have the right to overturn the popular elections and install their guy in power--against the will of the electorate. Unfortunately for Abramson, American citizens still have a right to vote for elected officials.

Party rules have been established by majority votes of delegates, delegates who have cared enough to participate in the work of the party at the local level, where they are in turn voted on to state and national conventions. Mr. Abramson clearly has not participated in that process but that doesn't stop him from imagining he can unilaterally pronounce a rules change that he thinks will enable his candidate to seize power against the electoral will of the people. He can engage in whatever authoritarian fantasies he wants, but he has no ability to impose them on the party. His essay is a stunning demonstration of self entitlement.

It is interesting to see that some Sanders supporters are so open about their opposition to the electoral democracy and the voting rights of the majority. After Wyoming we had complaints that the elderly and disabled were allowed to vote. Now we see the end goal is to overturn electoral democracy itself and with it the rights of the majority.

That Bernie Sanders would sit by while his campaign director and surrogates plot to overturn the vote of the majority confirms to me that he is not fit to lead this nation.

[Fast Walker 52]

109. your point has nothing to do with math but an interpretation of rules

and 2008 clearly showed that super-delegates can switch to a different candidate if they have more pledged delegates. Jeesh.

[fighting-irish]

85. The contest is already over.

Clinton started with this enormous lead and trust. She lost about 60% of that already and will not gain any significant number of delegates, which shows that despite the money and the media behind it, she has already lost for good about 33-40% of the Democrats she needs to win. The Clinton delegates will see the writing on the wall and abandon her, pledged or not.

[Zira]

99. I hope you're right.

[Recursion]

90. You can't have a "contested" convention with two candidates

Barring a bunch of abstentions you can't even have multiple ballots in that case (and I'm not sure abstentions are even allowed anymore).

[mythology]

92. More fucking stupid shit from Seth Abramson

I love the loaded language that Clinton is "owed fealty". If the author has to resort to using that sort of language, I'm going to assume he's unbiased enough to not be worth listening to.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, general election polling this far out is good for bird cage lining. It certainly doesn't merit multiple points to try to buff out Sanders' supposed case for being given the nomination he isn't earning.

Saying that Sanders is a movement politician like Bill Clinton and Obama, is a misnomer. They moved people to vote at a higher rate than their opponents. Sanders' movement isn't doing that.

If he's going to discount Clinton's wins in red states because they are going to vote Republican anyway, then we also need to discount Sanders' wins in red states and we should only look at battleground states because blue states are going to vote Democratic anyway. Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado have voted so far that are battleground states. Sanders has won 2 of those. Clinton has won 7 of them.

But even if we do go with the battleground and blue states, he can't actually make any real prediction that Clinton is only going to be 1 or 2 percent ahead in terms of delegates given that states where Clinton has a significant lead like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania and California are still coming up. And that's before
considering that the upcoming contests are mostly closed and primaries rather than open or caucuses. Sanders has drastically underperformed when it's a closed and/or primary.

I get it. The author and other Sanders supporters really really really want Sanders. But by all measures, the Democratic primary voters have said they'd much prefer Clinton.

[BainsBane]

101. Exactly

I get it. The author and other Sanders supporters really really really want Sanders. But by all measures, the Democratic primary voters have said they'd much prefer Clinton.

And that is what they resent. Hoping for a contested convention is how they seek to overturn the electoral will of the people. They are essentially saying that their preference for Sanders is more important than the rights of voters to determine their nominee (and ultimately leaders) at the ballot box.

[FSogol]

141. +1. Totally agree. n/t

[Gothmog]

105. What a silly and poorly informed OP

There will be no contested convention. This silly editorial ignores the fact that 400+ super delegates have already committed to Clinton and that Sanders has zero chance of flipping these super delegates. I enjoyed laughing at this silly thread because the premise of this thread ignores reality

[LexVegas]

111. You have reached the bargaining stage. nt

[Jitter65]

118. If just 40% of Sanders' supporters vote for Hillary in the GE she can win it without the rest.

If that 40% is in the right states, what happened in the primary become irrelevant. And if Sanders doesn't fully support Hillary in the GE he further marginalizes himself in the Senate as the Dems are almost certain to make some gains there.

[COLGATE4]

138. And IF my grandmother had wheels

she'd be a wagon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

123. It is foolish to believe that most of the remaining superdelegates will not fall in line and support

support Hillary if she has a clear majority of the pledged delegates.

[Renew Deal]

124. "Undemocratic Socialism" is now Bernies only hope

That's where Sanders begs the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters.

[Fast Walker 52]

126. uh no... he would ONLY do that if he ends up with more real votes in the primary

and that is UPHOLDING democracy.

[TheSarcastinator]

129. COMMOOOOONISSSSM!!!!

Mre red-baiting BS from the Clinton Cultists.

[COLGATE4]

131. Jesus Christ- not another POS from Seth Abramson,

English Teacher (and political pundit in his own mind). Only he can conjure up enough BS to make the case that the will be a contested Democratic convention. Seth should stick to teaching English.

[pantsonfire]

140. Let the marathon continue...or more like nascar race...

Round and round the go.....

[FlatBaroque]

146. She is NOT a policy wonk!!

Good lord. She only learns about policy to evaluate how she can profit from taking multiple positions.

[TheDormouse]

149. uphill battle for Bernie, but looking forward to contested convention

[COLGATE4]

151. I'm afraid you are going to be severely disappointed. nt