If Obama wins EVERY primary 60/40 from now till the convention

[ruggerson]

he still wouldn't have 2025 pledged delegates and still would not have won a majority.

It's mathematically impossible.

(Two can play this dumb game.)

[ExFreeper4Obama]

1. You dont get it

He will have the pledged delegate lead. The party officials, including Pelosi (convention chairwoman) and Dean have stated that they will not overturn the will of the people. They said they don't want to alienate the new energized voters. Clinton CANNOT win the popular vote either. So far all the remaining super delegates asked have stated they will not overturn the will of the people. See....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1


She will easily lose Mississippi, Wyoming, and North Carolina. The rest are toss-ups.

Its pretty much OVER.

[Zhade]

2. It's only a dumb game to you because you don't know how it's played.

Obama's in the lead. Well in the lead. He holds the popular vote, and will likely continue to do so. As such, the superdelegates will secure his nomination.

[Hawkowl]

3. Missing the point

The point is he will have a plurality of delegates and will have won more states. The party can either rally around him and confirm him as the nominee--or they can veto the people's choice and choose the person with the SECOND greatest amount of delegates and states. Democracy or not. The only way the Dem's are going to win in November is with a massive turnout. By telling millions of primary voters that even though their candidate got more pledged delegates he still won't be the nominee, the party would DESTROY voter turnout and hand the election to McCain.

So no. Two can't play at this game.

[ruggerson]

10. the superdelegates can't by definition "veto" anything

they are just a much a part of this, per the rules, as you and I. In this case, with neither candidate having won a majority going into the convention, it is the superdelegates who legitimately decide it. And they can vote whichever way they want, since that's how the rules read, and they wouldn't be "overturning" or "vetoing" anything. They're part of the process.

[anigbrowl]

15. You seriously think the SDs are going to give it to Hillary if she has fewer delegates?

I suppose they could commit electoral suicide if they really wanted to...but unless Obama self-destructs or Hillary magically starts winning huge majorities and overtakes him, it's pretty unlikely.

[aquart]

24. More states? But not the popular vote?

Well, sweetie, good luck with that argument.

[davidinalameda]

4. I'm guessing that the super-delegates will make up that difference

[Hepburn]

5. Boy, you really are clueless....this has been explained a ton of times...

...and you STILL manage to miss the point.

No wonder you support Hillary....

[Gore1FL]

6. yeah...

but if that were to happen, he'd only need 290 Super Delegates. He has 202 committed now. That means of the remaining 352 he'd need 88, or 25%.

Conversely, if Clinton won each with 60% she would need 431 Super Delgates. She has 242 committed now. That means of the remaining 353, she'd need 189 or 53.5%

Math is an unforgiving overlord.

[ruggerson]

8. Yep, no one has "won" this until the superdelegates weigh in

simply because it's now mathematically impossible for either of them to win with pledged delegates.

[Gore1FL]

16. However....

Clinton isn't going to win NC, AL, WY, MT, OR, or SD by 60.

So lets say she amazingly ties in those races, but wins 60 in everything else.

Still unrealistically in he favor, this scenario nets her 1574 pledged delegates +the 242 Super delegates already pledged for a total of 1816 2025-1816 = 209.

there are 352 remain delegates. She would have to convince about 60% of them to overturn the last 6 months of voting to give her a party destroying phyrric victory that costs us the general election, and likely House and Senate seats. You think they'll go for it?

[JackORoses]

20. the superdelegates will go with the pledged delegates

sorry, that's just the way it is.

[msallied]

7. Only dumb people play it your way. nt

[grantcart]

9. But you forget the super delegates

in the last month he as won that 67-16 or a rate of 80%

so far this week 5

Obama simply needs 45% of all of the rest of the delegates to win the nomination

pretty simply how can you continue to get it wrong?

[msallied]

12. But... but... She won Ohio and Rhode Island and Texas!!!

The people of three states have spoken!! She is ENTITLED to the nomination now!!! Who CARES about delegates! They only matter if you're winning anyway! Hillary's losing, so delegates are stupid and unfair! She won THREE STATES!! All Hail Queen Hillary!!

[ruggerson]

14. the simple part is that neither has won this with pledged delegates

so the superdelegates will be the ones providing the margin of victory. You have no way of knowing which way they will break and neither do I or anyone else.

[msallied]

17. Common sense says one thing, willful ignorance says another.

Common sense says that the SDs, who are elected government officials themselves, will have the best heart of the party in mind and will vote the same way their districts/states did and not subvert the will of the people. To not do so would cause an irreparable rift in the party.

Willful ignorance says... well, basically what you just said.

[ruggerson]

18. they can vote their preference - that''s not "subverting" anything

they are as legitimate part of the process as you and I. That's what you're not getting.

[Gore1FL]

19. Yeah...

But you can pretty much guess she won't get the 60%-75% of the remaining uncommited ones after losing the pledged delegate race.

I used this analogy before. In the last few years the Pittsburgh Pirates were not mathematically eliminated from winning NL Central at the All Star Break. Everyone knew it was unrealistic to assume they had a chance in hell of winning it.

[grantcart]

22. go here

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

hit on the link for each super delegate. It has a connection to a specific unambiguous statement by the superdelegate. Unless you think they are lying.

[grantcart]

11. man I typed fast and everyone got in front of me lol

got to give it a rec cause every Clintonite will come in here hoping he has discovered some crazy new math lol


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. I'll give ya a rec too

;)

Fun stuff.

[PseudoIntellect]

21. I think 64-16 or whatever the number is for recent SDs sums it up.

They don't WANT to vote against the will of the people.

[Political Heretic]

23. Unless its within a few delegates, whoever has the lead is most likely to get the nom.

The risk of going against the public process and dividing up the party is too great, I think.

A lot of that does depend on how Obama fairs over the next weeks and months. If he can weather the attacks and maintain his positioning not only as delegate leader, state leader and popular vote leader but also as strong candidate, then I just don't think there are any arguments the Clinton camp will be able to make that will be compelling enough to cause him not to get the nomination.