That table is really interesting and also should be pretty solid proof that even if Bernie beats her in a decent number of states (which, he clearly will do at this stage) it won't be by margins big enough to beat her overall. Which is good. I just hope the prolonged nature of this won't hurt her too much in the general.

As Suedehead has said though, that table is based on the very dubious assumption that superdelegates' votes can't change.

 

If anything, I would say that if (IF!) Sanders finishes ahead of Clinton in the primaries, it would be more likely that the Establishment would draft Joe Biden or possibly Elizabeth Warren as a "compromise" candidate. There is no way the superdelegates could justify imposing Clinton on the party as a candidate if she'd just been rejected by the party's own voters.

Edited February 11, 20169 yr by Danny

As Suedehead has said though, that table is based on the very dubious assumption that superdelegates' votes can't change.

The table doesn't account for superdelegates - that's just the route they'd both need to get 50% of the elected delegates. Hence, Sanders would need to get more than that to *guarantee* nomination. Superdelegates votes can change, but I think it's very unlikely so many would change that Sanders would take a lead among the superdelegates.

:(

As Suedehead has said though, that table is based on the very dubious assumption that superdelegates' votes can't change.

 

If anything, I would say that if (IF!) Sanders finishes ahead of Clinton in the primaries, it would be more likely that the Establishment would draft Joe Biden or possibly Elizabeth Warren as a "compromise" candidate. There is no way the superdelegates could justify imposing Clinton on the party as a candidate if she'd just been rejected by the party's own voters.

 

 

You mean a party would be allowed to do this? Select someone for the nomination who wasn't even a candidate in the primaries? :huh:

You mean a party would be allowed to do this? Select someone for the nomination who wasn't even a candidate in the primaries? :huh:

It's possible but it hasn't been done in a very, very long time - not since 1952 for the Democrats. It hasn't been done for a winning candidate since 1932.

You mean a party would be allowed to do this? Select someone for the nomination who wasn't even a candidate in the primaries? :huh:

 

If it's in the hands of the superdelegates (i.e. neither candidate has gained an overall majority from pledged delegates awarded from the results of the primaries alone), then yes.

 

If Clinton wins the primaries anyway then it isn't an issue, she'll be the nominee regardless. But if she loses to Sanders then, as I say, they just couldn't have a candidate who had actually been beaten roundly beaten -- even leaving aside the fact that Sanders supporters would be furious and possibly wouldn't turn out for the general election in November, it would also feed into one of the most damaging lines of attack about Clinton with the general public, that she's corrupt ("she even gets her cronies to bend the rules for her when she loses an election").

Edited February 11, 20169 yr by Danny

In this unlikely scenario, I think the turnout thing would be dependent on who the Republican candidate was. If it were Trump/Cruz I could see it being similar to when Chirac and Le Pen ended up in the run-off, for Democrats at least.

Antonin Scalia, a right-wing member of the US Supreme Court has died. Barack Obama will get the opportunity to nominate a replacement, but the Republican-dominated Senate committee has to confirm the nomination.

Already the Republicans are climbing over one another to be the person that shouts the loudest about completely ignoring the right of the president, who is still in power for 11months regardless of the utter car crash that is the US presidential election, and demanding that the new pick be delayed 12 months. (Primarily so they can replace this homophobic racist pro-gun right wing nutbag with another one instead of someone who actually realises its the 21st century and not the 19th.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics...poll/index.html

 

And there goes the southern firewall. I think it was short-sighted to dismiss the overall trend since last summer of moving to electing Bernie

Nevada wasn't the firewall - Bernie would need to be winning it by five delegates to be on track. The firewall is the states where Hillary needs to be winning to be on track.

It was the Southern Firewall of states going Hillary as the north is Bernie.

Nevada isn't considered 'the South' at all in a political sense. And again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that it's a state Hillary can afford to lose narrowly on delegates and still be on track for 50%. Ergo, her tying there isn't a sign that the firewall has broken, even if Nevada were the firewall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35546662

 

He is outfunding her too and building momentum.

South doesn't mean below the halfway line, it largely refers to the states that broke away to form the Confederate States of America in the civil war and the area aka the bible belt.

 

Nevada is neither of those things.

South doesn't mean below the halfway line, it largely refers to the states that broke away to form the Confederate States of America in the civil war and the area aka the bible belt.

 

Nevada is neither of those things.

 

 

That's true as far as it goes, BUT Clinton's "firewall" wasn't thought to be just the South specifically, it was thought to be all the more ethnically-diverse states. Nevada is certainly one of those, it's white population is below the national average, and yet she's statistically tied.

 

If her "firewall" really is down to the states where black people make up 40% or more of the Democrat selectorate, then that's down to about 10 states (of which South Carolina is one).

We are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 election with the success of Sanders even if he loses. Even Americans are concerned about inequality now.

You say that like neither Hillary nor Obama are concerned about inequality.

Nevada called early for Clinton. This was a state Sanders had to win and had to win by a decent margin - therefore making it one that was on paper more favourable to him anyway - so let's please bring an end to the 'SANDERS IS GOING TO WIN BY A LANDSLIDE' nonsense (naming no name).