Democratic delegate count as of this afternoon:

[George II]

Despite the attempts to "flip" some delegates from Clinton to Sanders by his campaign, several more have now moved into the Clinton column.

As of this afternoon, here are the counts:

Pledged Delegates

Clinton 1665, Sanders 1370 (Clinton +295), 1016 remaining. Clinton needs 361, 35.5% of remaining pledged delegates for a PLEDGED delegate majority.

Superdelegates

Clinton 489, Sanders 41 (Clinton +458). Clinton has 92.2% who have pledged, 74.2% of all 714 superdelegates.

Total Delegates

Clinton 2154, Sanders 1411 (Clinton +743), 1200 remaining. Clinton needs only 229, 19.0% of remaining delegates for an OVERALL delegate majority.

Looks like the "flipping" effort has backfired!

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Very good post.

Thanks for the information.

[tonyt53]

2. But Bernie-ites will say that he will get those supers to switch

If he pushes the issue, he will lose some of the 41 that he has.

[WhiteTara]

8. Or they'll say

she cheated!

[livetohike]

3. Thanks! Appreciate the update.

[HumanityExperiment]

4. Noted...

HRC still hasn't earned the nomination and based upon the proportional voting so far might not make it until convention with the required delegates and willl need the SDs to 'earn' the nomination

Thx for pointing that out!

[George II]

6. If that makes you feel better.

By the way, the latest Sanders campaign scenario, awarding superdelegates to the candidate who won the state, would result in these delegate counts as of today:

Clinton 2,087, only 296 of 1104 (27%) of the remaining delegates for the majority
Sanders 1,574, 296 of 1104 (73%) of the remaining delegates for the majority

And with this scenario concocted by Weaver, Devine, et. al, the superdelegates would be assigned, no "flipping" involved.

[lunamagica]

7. Hmm. So, the Sanders camp should be careful what they wish for.

[Squinch]

11. The Sanders campaign should, just once, pull out a calculator before they open their mouths.

[Democratic Divo]

12. Yeah but that's not how they calculate it.

Only supers in states Bernie won are supposed to change.

[morningfog]

14. Has the Sanders campaign actually argues that supers should

follow their state results? I know some supporters have said that. It's always been just dumb on its face. But did Bernie or his campaign actually make that argument. If they did, I didn't see it.

[George II]

16. Yes they have. Tad and Jeff have said it a number of times over the last few weeks, ever since...

...it became obvious that between pledged delegates and COMMITTED superdelegates, Sanders has already lost.

[morningfog]

17. Well there are no "committed" supers.

And I've seen the campaign make the argument or switching supers based on Bernie's polling strength and appeal to independents. But I didn't see the "follow the state"'argument. Does anyone have a link to the campaign saying that?

[George II]

19. If there are no "committed" supers, why are Sanders supporters harassing Clinton....

superdelegates and calling them in the middle of the night?

[morningfog]

22. Because they aren't "committed." They aren't bound

until they vote at the convention.

Back to my original question. Can you show me where the Sanders Campaign itself argued that the supers should follow their state results?

[George II]

24. They're not bound, but they most certainly are committed.

[morningfog]

26. And back to my original question. When did sanders campaign itself

argue that the supers should follow the state results?

[HumanityExperiment]

15. Feel better?...

It's math, I see you avoid the proportional aspect and the remaining states that need to vote

HRC hasn't earned the nomination, you know this as well as I, the likelihood of her doing it before the convention is very slim so that leaves convention and SDs

Does that make me feel better? It's not about emotion it's about the math...

[George II]

18. I think we're all well aware of the proportional aspect of the remaining states.......

......which is why Clinton will wrap this up long before the convention. If primaries/caucuses were NOT proportional, I'm sure you know that Clinton would have clinched the nomination last Tuesday.

[HumanityExperiment]

20. She hasn't and she won't...

She'll have to wait until convention most likely.. forcing the SDs to come into play

I remember the '68 convention and what outcomes that caused, Jimmy Carter then establishment brought in SDs to counter populism and things getting out of control from establishment power base and control

[George II]

25. Quite a vivid memory - Jimmy Carter didn't run for President until 1976, and superdelegates...

...weren't implemented until 1984.

And who was involved in devising the superdelegates? Mr. Tad Devine.

[HumanityExperiment]

27. History...

I know the history, after '68 convention then went full on democracy approach, populism reigned hence the SDs after Carter

[Garrett78]

32. The SDs will only "come into play" as a formality.

It's a given who the nominee will be if that person has won a clear majority of pledged delegates. Not reaching 2383 via pledged delegates alone is meaningless.

[HumanityExperiment]

35. rules...

'given' that the rules don't validate your reply let's stick to the facts shall we?

majority and meeting the rules stated delegate count matter do they not?

Meaningless is HRC supporters trying to craft a narrative away from what the rules clearly state

SDs and convention are what will define who becomes nominee...

I get that the establishment are pushing HRC as the 'intended' nominee but let the remaining states have their say in this primary cycle shall we and then if HRC can earn the nomination then so be it but, I highly doubt she will and that means convention and SDs

[Garrett78]

38. What rules would those be?

The rule that says SDs can support whomever they wish?

Clinton will have won a clear majority of pledged delegates. Let's say it's 2175 to 1876 heading into the convention. Do you think the SDs would make Sanders the nominee? Does any sane person believe that would happen?

Getting Clinton from 2175 to 2383 would be a mere formality.

[HumanityExperiment]

40. Rules...

SDs are basically unbound but they don't matter until convention when they actually vote, they are only 'pledged' and did so before a single primary vote was cast so.... it was clear whom the establishment wanted as nominee even before a single DEM party 'civilian' was able to 'voice' their opinion...

mere formality is still bound by rules as dictated by the DEM party... if you want the process 'sped' up then get crackin' at the convention to modify / change the rules, until then HRC hasn't earned the nomination regardless of how many times you reply / post otherwise

Platform and party planks are at stake here, not just the nominee

Enjoy the ride, it's about going to get bumpy here on out and through the convention

[silvershadow]

34. He's trying to provide her some shade..he's going all the way to convention, no matter what due to

the possibility of her being indicted and leaving the entire party with their pants at their ankles. He is owed much respect in that regard alone from the party as whole, though here on DU it doesn't seem to be acknowledged. The more we all talk about math, though, I suppose it deflects eyeballs from the scandal. So that's good. Carry on, because it isn't about the math. It's about the FBI investigation.

[lunamagica]

5. K&R. Thanks for the update, George!

#FeelTheMath

[NurseJackie]

9. This makes me feel like ...

[grossproffit]

10. So, Bernie still has a chance!!!!!!!

[BootinUp]

13. K & R

[Tiggeroshii]

21. He needs 2026 pledged delegates for the majority

Then he will have 2 months to get everybody to vote for the one with more delegates

[Demsrule86]

37. If he wants to return to the Senate

and not be naming post offices...he gets out after California, robustly endorses Clinton and campaigns with her...at the convention he puts her name in by acclamation as she did for Obama.

[Tiggeroshii]

39. All that is fine if he doesn't get to 2026.

But 2026 is the winning number. Unless you are into circumventing democracy and ignoring the will of the voters, then let's go with the delegates who are elected and not the lobbyists paid off to support your candidate

[Number23]

23. "Clinton +743" Good Lord that's gotta hurt. I'm sure that Hillary is feeling like this guy right now

[northernsouthern]

28. I love how she has enough superdelegates to negate California.

That is corruption if I have ever seen it.

[Feeling the Bern]

29. Just like in 2008, I will say it again. SD's are the most undemocratic thing in the Party.

[GulfCoast66]

30. So lets count the actual votes

and she still is kicking ass...

[Feeling the Bern]

31. I can accept that. SDs I cannot.

[Garrett78]

33. Far, far too much is made of the SDs.

Fear not, the candidate who has won a majority of pledged delegates will be the nominee. I'd be fine with doing away with SDs, but it doesn't really matter, because the winner will be the same regardless.

[Demsrule86]

36. Thanks

Thank you for providing this detailed post about the delegates. Good news.

[Demnorth]

41. Thank you

for this update - and for providing clarification in multiple posts!