LiberalFighter
LiberalFighter's JournalDemocratic - Republican Primary Vote Comparisons
Democratic Primary Popular Votes2016: 21,708,003 * 12,255,888 (Clinton)
2012: 8,844,760 * 8,044,659 (Obama)
2008: 37,170,231 * 17,584,692 (Obama)
2004: 16,535,823 * 10,045,891 (Kerry)
2000: 14,013,416 * 10,642,105 (Gore)
Republican Primary Popular Votes
2016: 25,535,872 * 10,125,402 (Trump)
2012: 19,272,346 * 10,048,134 (Romney)
2008: 20,613,585 * 9,615,533 (McCain)
2004: 8,008,070 * 7,853,863 (Bush)
2000: 19,519,539 * 12,089,564 (Bush)
== First column of votes consist of totals of all candidates in primary ==
Information courtesy of The Green Papers
Indiana Primary and History
Clinton did win Indiana 38-34 in 2008. The reason why I expect(ed) Indiana to go Sanders is because we have an open primary. But, Hillary has won more open primaries than Sanders.
Recent poll from 538 shows average of 48.8 - 41 favoring Clinton.
Indiana's polling hours are 6am to 6pm. That might be a factor too.
ANOTHER bit of information. Indiana only had 72 delegates in 2008. But because of the formula that the DNC uses to determine delegate allocation Indiana will have 83 delegates this year. In 2012 they had 96 delegates. The reason for the fluctuation is due to voter turnout for a Democratic candidate over a 3 election cycle.
Below shows the allocation of delegates in this election and the past 3. Allocation of delegates by Democratic voter turnout during those years is also at the congressional district level. This reflects how a weighting factor may give a state with comparable population a different delegate count.
Obama won Indiana in the 2008 general election which is the reason for the jump in delegates in 2012.
District * 2004 * 2008 * 2012 * 2016
CD1 -- - -- 6 -- -- 6 -- -- 10 -- -- 8
CD2 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD3 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD4 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD5 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 7
CD6 -- - -- 5 -- -- 5 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD7 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 8 -- -- 8
CD8 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD9 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
AtLarge -- 15 --- 16 ----- 11 -- -- 9
PLEO --- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 22 -- - 18
Delegates -67 --- 72 -- -- 96 -- - 83
Indiana should be roughly a 45 - 38 split for Clinton -- Net 7 delegates.
Based on current data it should result in delegates as follows:Clinton: 1,709
Sanders: 1,409
Spread: 300
Remaining Delegates: 933
Based on supposed Bernie Math that states the nominee must have the majority of combined pledged and unpledged delegates using just pledged delegates the following:
Needed pledged delegates:
Clinton: 674
Sanders: 974
Needed percent of pledged delegates:
Clinton: 72.2%
Sanders: 104.4%
Data worth knowing
States WonOpen Primaries -- Clinton: 9 -- Sanders: 3
Modified Primaries -- Clinton: 3 -- Sanders: 3
Closed Caucuses -- Clinton: 3 -- Sanders: 5
Open Caucuses -- Clinton: 1 -- Sanders: 4
Electoral Votes
States Obama 2008 -- Clinton: 188 -- Sanders: 71
Automatic [Super] Delegates
Current -- Clinton: 483 -- Sanders: 40 -- O'Malley: 1
Delegates (Subject to Official Results Submitted)
All Delegates -- Clinton: 2147 -- Sanders: 1411
Pledged Needed -- Clinton: 362 (35.6%) -- Sanders: 655 (64.5%)
All Needed -- Clinton: 236 (9.9%) -- Sanders: 972 (40.8%)
The official number of delegates if all delegates are living and show up at the convention is 4,765. The nominee needs to receive a majority of all delegates which are Pledged and Automatic combined. It takes 2,383 to reach the majority. It can be any combination of both Pledged and Automatic. It is not 2,383 of just Pledged delegates as the opposition try to argue.
States with higher turnout than 2008
Michigan* -- 2008: 594,398 --- 2016: 1,169,075 -- Increase of 574,677.
There were no other states with a higher turnout.
* Obama and other Democrats removed their name from the ballot due to Michigan not following the rules.
VIII. Procedural Rules of the 2016 Democratic National Convention
a. After nominations for presidential candidates have closed, the Convention shall proceed to a roll call vote by states on the selection of the presidential candidate. The roll call voting shall follow the alphabetical order of the states with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the territories treated as states for the purpose of the alphabetical roll call.
b. A majority vote of the Convention’s delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate.
c. Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Any vote cast other than a vote for a presidential candidate meeting the requirements of Article VI of this Call and Rule 12.K. of the 2016 Delegate Selection Rules shall be considered a vote for “Present.”
d. Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected. Upon selection, balloting may be temporarily suspended, provided that the balloting shall continue at a time certain determined by the Convention Chair, until all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories shall publically deliver their vote prior to the nominee’s acceptance speech. The nominee shall become the candidate of the Democratic Party of the United States for the Office of President upon the conclusion of his or her acceptance speech.
Pledged and Unpledged Delegates are considered a subset of all delegates.
The distribution of votes, delegates and alternates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention shall be in accordance with the following:
B. A base of 3,200 delegate votes is distributed among the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to a formula giving equal weight to the sum of the vote for the Democratic candidates in the three (3) most recent presidential elections and to population by electoral vote. The formula is expressed mathematically as follows:
G. Unpledged votes shall be allocated to provide for the Democratic President, the Democratic Vice President, and all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the United States Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the United States House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairpersons of the Democratic National Committee. Such delegates shall be seated with the state delegations from the state in which they have their voting residences.
Automatic Delegates (misnamed as superdelegates)
The media, Sanders and supporters push the narrative that automatic delegates are elected officials. That is not entirely true. Only 36.5% of them are delegates because they are either a Governor, Senator, or Representative. A total of 261 are in that category.
The remaining 454 (63.5%) are either Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) or DNC members. 20 are DPL and 434 are DNC members.
DPL consist of current and former presidents, vice presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs.
100 of the DNC members consist of state party chairs and an executive state party member of the opposite gender from each state. The remaining 334 are activists within the Democratic Party. They are elected either by delegates at state conventions or at state central meetings. They come from various backgrounds. About 65 of them are also elected officials from various levels that include city, county, and state. DNC members in many cases represent a geographical area. If they are one of the 65 they have two constituencies. Those as an elected official and the area they serve in their DNC capacity.
BTW despite what others say the Republican Party also has superdelegates. The media and others just want to pick on the Democratic Party.
The Green Papers (Current Delegate Count)
Updated 10:53 pm
Clinton: 138
Sanders: 109
1,432,399 votes
===================
Note: 6 districts split delegates 3-3 even though Clinton had more votes.
===================
Updated 10:02 pm
Clinton: 137
Sanders: 104
858,047 votes
26 districts reported
District 4 not reported
===================
Updated 9:46 pm
Clinton: 137
Sanders: 104
752,268 votes
22 districts reported
===================
Updated 9:38 pm
Clinton: 126
Sanders: 90
448,660 votes
26 districts reported
===================
Subject to change.
Clinton: 107
Sanders: 62
60,796 votes in
14 districts reported
No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008)
Gotham Gazette January 28, 2008 | by Andrea SentenoThe Question of Constitutionality
In the 1970s a group of New Yorkers prohibited from voting in party primaries because they missed the date for switching parties challenged the New York deadline, which was then the same as it is now. They argued that the timeframe was unconstitutional because it restricted their inherent rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to affiliate with the party of their choosing.
Two lower courts ruled in Rosario v. Rockefeller that the New York's enrollment deadline was unconstitutional. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four split, overturned the decision and upheld New York's primary procedures. The state's policies did not absolutely disenfranchise voters, said the Supreme Court, they merely put in place a time restriction in relation to party affiliation.
The Most Exciting Attack On Partisan Gerrymandering In Over A Decade
ThinkProgressStephanopoulos and McGhee’s central insight is that gerrymanders operate by forcing the disadvantaged party to “waste” votes. Some voters are shunted into districts where their party’s candidate has no chance of winning, a process known as “cracking.” Others are crammed into districts that so overwhelmingly favor their party’s candidate that casting an additional ballot for that candidate merely adds padding to a foregone conclusion, a process known as “packing.” “A gerrymander,” Stephanopoulos and McGhee write, “is simply a district plan that results in one party wasting many more votes than its adversary.”
To sniff out possibly gerrymanders, Stephanopoulos and McGhee begin by counting each party’s “wasted” votes. As the three-judge panel hearing the Whitford case explained in a recent opinion, a wasted vote occurs when a voter either casts a ballot “for a candidate who lost the election” (suggesting that the voter was targeted by cracking), or if they cast a ballot “for the winning candidate, but in excess of what the candidate needed to win” (suggesting that the voter was packed).
As Stephanopoulos and McGhee note, some number of wasted votes are inevitable in elections involving single-member districts. But a fair map should produce roughly equal numbers of wasted votes for both parties. To determine which maps diverge too far from the ideal, the two scholars offer a metric they call the “efficiency gap,” which is calculated by taking the difference of the two parties’ wasted votes and then dividing it by the total number of votes cast. The plaintiffs in Whitford (speaking through a team of lawyers that includes Stephanopoulos) offer an example of how to calculate this figure in their complaint:
Suppose, for example, that there are five districts in a plan with 100 voters each. Suppose also that Party A wins three of the districts by a margin of 60 votes to 40, and that Party B wins two of them by a margin of 80 votes to 20. Then Party A wastes 10 votes in each of the three districts it wins and 20 votes in each of the two districts it loses, adding up to 70 wasted votes. Likewise, Party B wastes 30 votes in each of the two districts it wins and 40 votes in each of the three districts it loses, adding up to 180 wasted votes. The difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes is 110, which, when divided by 500 total votes, yields an efficiency gap of 22% in favor of Party A.
An efficiency gap of more than 7 percent, these plaintiffs claim, is indicative of a partisan gerrymander. When combined with evidence that the state acted intentionally to give one party an advantage, they argue that courts should presume that a map that produces such a high efficiency gap is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
It is a Democratic Party Primary...
Not a "Anybody Party Primary".
If they don't want to be associated with the Democratic Party then they should not be deciding the nominee.
49.1% Democrats
23.8% Republicans
01.4% Conservative
00.2% Green Party
00.4% Working Families
04.0% Independence
00.0%+ Women's Eqaulity
00.0%+ Reform Party
00.0%+ Other
20.9% No Party Specified
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Wisconsin
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 53,045