LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Via The Hill Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is projected to win the Virgin Islands caucuses (with 86% of the votes). Clinton’s win does little to pad her delegate lead over Bernie Sanders, as the state offers only 7 pledged delegates. But the victory is a small boost to her pivot toward taking on presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Bernie also lost his first superdelegate after his loss in US Virgin islands. ---- Deflower them Queen Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo 8,578 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I didn't know they could vote Don't visit my profile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 "As voters in the Virgin Islands were casting their ballots, Clinton was only 67 delegates shy of the 2,383 needed to win the nomination, according to the Associated Press." Completely untrue. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 1 minute ago, FATCAT said: "As voters in the Virgin Islands were casting their ballots, Clinton was only 67 delegates shy of the 2,383 needed to win the nomination, according to the Associated Press." Completely untrue. Huh? She had 2316 delegates before this primary and you need 2383 to win. That's 67 left. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: Huh? She had 2316 delegates before this primary and you need 2383 to win. That's 67 left. She has 1,769 pledged delegates. You need 2383 pledged delegates to win. That's 614 left. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, FATCAT said: She has 1,769 pledged delegates. You need 2383 pledged delegates to win. That's 614 left. She needs 2383 DELEGATES not pledged delegates. The 2383 limit is determined with superdelegates. Why are you discounting them? Remove the superdelegates if you want. That's 2383 - 593 = 1790. She needs 21 more to win without superdelegates. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: The 2383 limit is determined with superdelegates. Why are you discounting them? Remove the superdelegates if you want. That's 2383 - 593 = 1790. She needs 21 more to win without superdelegates. The 2383 limit is not determined with super delegates. They aren't a factor in the limit. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: She needs 2383 DELEGATES not pledged delegates. The 2383 limit is determined with superdelegates. Why are you discounting them? Remove the superdelegates if you want. That's 2383 - 593 = 1790. She needs 21 more to win without superdelegates. Found this for you, an actual DNC official: This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zilla 13,451 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Technically the US Virgin Islands are a US territory so they can vote. As well as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa..... to name a few Doesn't do much but as long as she keeps acquiring other places and focusing on CA she should be okay. I hope 𝙸'𝚖 𝚊 𝚓𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚓𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚎𝚜 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚐𝚒𝚛𝚕. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 11 minutes ago, FATCAT said: The 2383 limit is not determined with super delegates. They aren't a factor in the limit. Source of numbers: Realclearpolitics The total number of delegates awarded is 4763. You need 2383 to win right? Where do you think that number comes from? 4763/2 = 2381.5 = 2382... now add one in order to break a potential tie and you get 2383. You automatically win the nomination in that case. There are 712 superdelegates, of which 593 have already taken sides. 4763 - 712 = 4051 So in order to win the nomination without superdelegates using the same rules, you'd need 50% + 1 of that number. That's 4051/2 = 2025.5 = 2026 ... so you'd need 2027 delegates. Hillary currently has 1769 delegates. Add the 6 from today and you have 1775. That means she needs 2027 - 1775 delegates = 252 more pledged delegates to win. How many pledged delegates are there left? There are 902 delegates remaining. Remove 712 - 593 = 119 superdelegates from that count to get the remaining pledged delegates. So there are 783 pledged delegates left Clinton would only need 252/783 =32% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. That's a very easy margin to cross. With or without superdelegates, Sanders has lost. The math is not there no matter what logic you employ. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said: The total number of delegates awarded is 4763. 4763/2 = 2381.5 = 2382... now add one in order to break a potential tie and you get 2383. Where do you think that number comes from? You automatically win the nomination in that case. There are 712 superdelegates, of which 593 have already taken sides. 4763 - 712 = 4051 So in order to win the nomination without superdelegates using the same rules, you'd need 50% + 1 of that number. That's 4051/2 = 2025.5 = 2026 ... so you'd need 2027 delegates. Hillary currently has 1769 delegates. Add the 6 from today and you have 1775. That means she needs 2027 - 1775 delegates = 252 more pledged delegates to win. How many pledged delegates are there left? There are 902 pledged delegates remaining. Clinton would only need 252/902 = 28% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. That's a very easy margin to cross. With or without superdelegates, Sanders has lost. The math is not there no matter what logic you employ. The point of the 2383 number is that they win no matter the super delegate count. This isn't about Hillary or Bernie. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, FATCAT said: The point of the 2383 number is that they win no matter the super delegate count. This isn't about Hillary or Bernie. I just showed you that the 2383 number is derived from all delegates not just pledged delegates by employing math. Why are you discounting that? The 2383 number is determined by superdelegates. It's true that they are still unbound and can change, but as of this writing they are not changed and therefore are a valid marker. If you're trying to claim that she needs 2838 pledged delegates then you are being blatantly wrong. No Democrat has ever won the nomination with pledged delegates alone, yet all of them were declared winners as soon as they led in delegates. It's exactly as you said. It's not about Hillary or Bernie, yet you are trying to excuse Sanders for some reason. You only need a lead in delegates to win. Hillary has that. She lost against Obama despite having the popular vote. His claim wasn't contested because he beat Hillary consistently and significantly in important swing states. Bernie does not have that luxury. It doesn't help that he's alienated the superdelegates throughout his run. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: I just showed you that the 2383 number is derived from all delegates not just pledged delegates by employing math. Why are you discounting that? The 2383 number is determined by superdelegates. It's true that they are still unbound and can change, but as of this writing they are not changed and therefore are a valid marker. It's exactly because it's not about Hillary or Bernie. You only need a lead in delegates to win. Hillary has that. She lost against Obama despite having the popular vote. His claim wasn't contested because he beat Hillary consistently in swing states. Bernie does not have that luxury. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp. The 2383 count is derived from both systems, yes, but the limit is determined by the amount of pledged delegates needed. This limit is meaningless when added with super delegates. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, FATCAT said: The 2383 count is derived from both systems, yes, but the limit is determined by the amount of pledged delegates needed. This limit is meaningless when added with super delegates. What are you even trying to say at this point? The limit IS the 2383 count. That's the amount you need to win. It's not meaningless when you add superdelegates because that count is determined by them. I did an entire mathematical analysis without superdelegates and she still wins. The math isn't there for Bernie no matter what. If you want a nomination, you have to use a different tactic, one that would overrule the popular vote no matter what you do. I suppose it's OK for Sanders to be a hypocrite in this scenario? Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: What are you even trying to say at this point? The limit IS the 2383 count. That's the amount you need to win. The limit is created with super delegates in mind, but the 2383 goal is ONLY pledged delegates, not super delegates. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.