2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Sanders were to ask for a rules change for proportionate distribution of SGs at the convention...
Has anyone done the math on that? Would that also be for the caucuses that also held a vote later - using the vote tallies I guess?
Saw this mentioned in an op Ed quoted on FB, so am unfamiliar with how this would work exactly.
TIA for your honest and non snarky answers!
msongs
(67,198 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Is the new strategy.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seek to change the rules. Maybe that was his plan when he tried to replace a couple people on the committees?
It's in the second paragraph here, I think.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Much to the chagrin of a few friends. Sorry dudes, the USSC matters to all of us too much to fuck around.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I cannot believe how frequently it is cited at DU recently.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I figured if there was anything to it, people would know. Sounds like another fairy tale though.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I was just observing that it is weird how many RW sources have made their way to DU recently.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)circumstance
It is not going to happen, but rules can state if the candidate is convicted of a crime, her standing is not good and she will be dismissed and escorted out.
Rules are adopted to protect the party, not a candidate
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)Any changes to the rules requires 2/3 vote.
Start with Hillary ahead with pledged delegates 1769 to 1501. Those are all proportional. Applying the same to automatic delegates would not change the outcome. The percent of pledged delegates is 54.0% to 45.9%. The ratio would remain almost identical when applied to automatic delegates. Using just the 562 automatic delegates from primaries/caucuses already completed the allocation would be 304 to 258 for total of Clinton: 2,073 -- Sanders: 1,759. The spread increases from 268 to 314 for Clinton.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)of delegates from Michigan and Florida. Remember that Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan and she wanted pledged delegates according to her votes, and she wanted the others to be unpledged. Obama argued that he should get most or all of the delegates from Michigan that Hillary didn't get. In the end, the rules committee counted the Florida and Michigan delegates as half a vote, and Obama did get some from Michigan. I don't remember a floor vote on this, but doubt that it would have passed if it required 2/3 votes.
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)only Party officials and committee can vote on rules changes
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)And the Dem Party won't let it happen. Something to do with the rules not allowing major changes like this to occur on the fly. This is why several states have voted to have SD's support candidates proportionally starting in 2020.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)brooklynite
(93,873 posts)Clinton is ahead in actual votes.
Actual votes are used (except in some Caucus States) to determine proportionate share of pledged delegates.
If you distribute Superdelegates proportionally, Clinton will still be ahead, because she's ahead in both votes and pledged delegates.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Thanks for reassuring me, I wrongly I thought there might be some sense behind it!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)State has is not in line with their population or registered Democrats.
NH, IA, LA and NV each have 8 super delegates, but the range of pledged delegates varies from 24 to 51 depending on size.
CA has the most with 71, but that makes sense since they have the most Democratic seats in the House.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)They'd essentially become PDs and lose their reason for existing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)And we would end back at the same place as we are now.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)Seems like a dumb idea to have these sorts of weasels as Superdelegates.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)onenote
(42,383 posts)with 154 to be doled out proportionately. There are rounding issues so this may be off by a bit.
But the bottom line is that Sanders would have to capture over 90 percent of the remaining superd's to catch up to Clinton.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)grasshoppers had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)It wouldn't matter one bit.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)delegates, unless the unfavorables continue for Hillary into a GE loss likelyhood
Tarc
(10,472 posts)The superdelegates who pledged to Hillary early in the 2008 primary season jumped ship when it became clear that Obama would be the pledged delegate winner. That is what the supers do. That is what they have always done.
If Bernie had won the pledged delegate this year, the supers would have jumped to him again, and I wold have encouraged them to do so.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)fail again- she had her ducks in a row this time, I even considered her until she reverted back to sniping