2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Problem with Hillary's Math
Team Hillary keeps talking about "The Math" as if there were only 2 factors:
(Won Delegates) + (Remaining Delegates).
While it's true that Sanders cannot win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination before the convention, the same is true for Hillary - she will not win on pledged delegates alone.
But that's not Hillary's Math problem.
That's where the "super" delegates factor in. "Super" delegates can declare before the convention, but are not bound by those declarations. Up to the convention, they can vote in any way they see fit. So far, Bernie has had little success wooing "super" delegates. Those unpledged delegates have overwhelmingly favored Clinton.
Well, they have so far...
But those delegates can abandon her if some unknown variable affected her viability. Some variable like, say....an ongoing FBI investigation.
That variable changes the math. Suddenly, you go from "1+2=3" to "(1+2)*(FBI)=(X)"
No one knows what the FBI variable will equal, so no one knows what X will equal. The investigation could have no effect, or it could have a devastating effect. If it has a devastating effect, then we will know the value of X. Trump will become president.
Do you want Trump to become President? Why risk it on an unknown variable? That's a YUUGE gamble!
Variables. That's Hillary's Math problem.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skink
(10,122 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)will do for Clinton what they did from Romney
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)As that will be Hillary Clinton, they will stay with who they have pledged to already. If it had been Bernie that won, they would've jumped and vooted for him, just as they did for Obama in 2008.
There's a lot of drama and hand-wringing over something that in reality is pretty simple and straight-forward.
demwing
(16,916 posts)because you're gambling with our future by ignoring the fact that Hillary is under FBI investigation.
Do you WANT Trump to become our President?
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Like Benghazi, it was a GOP-manufactured poutrage, nothing more.
Sanders has to win the nomination by getting more delegates; it's that simple.
demwing
(16,916 posts)The FBI are not the Congressional Republicans, and your blinders in that regard are dangerously risky.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)That Clinton did not intentionally or knowingly compromise security.
We're about a half-step away from exoneration.
demwing
(16,916 posts)but let's say that the issue is safe for Clinton. Excellent. One less thing to worry about, but not the only thing.
Then we move on to the money laundering issue, and there's always the transcripts.
And in the GE, Trump will pull it all off the shelf and use it again. Look how long Trump held on to the Birth Certificate issue. Dismiss Trump, but he just chewed through a herd of Republicans to claim the nomination, including a Bush.
There's risk with every candidate. Some candidate present an acceptable level of risk, but Clinton sinks below the acceptable risk level. With Bernie running, she's an unnecessary risk.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)and that'd just be scratching the surface. Your argument that "Republicans will criticize Hillary night and day so nominate Bernie instead" is just so ridiculously stupid that I cannot believe I'm still having to read it this late into election season.
The GOP will attack anyone with innuendo and falsehoods, that is their game.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Its the argument you want me to have, because it's easy to dismiss.
My argument is pretty fucking clear, so I'm shocked you can't follow. Shocked, I say... 
Super delegates can abandon her if some unknown variable affected her viability. Some variable like, say....an ongoing FBI investigation, or a money laundering scheme, or a transcript get's leaked. Or who know what the fuck to expect with Clinton?
There's risk with every candidate. Some candidate present an acceptable level of risk, but Clinton sinks below the acceptable risk level. With Bernie running, she's an unnecessary risk.
It's just the math.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)negligence and incompetence.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)So, at worst, she used a private email server just a previous SoS's have, when an official one would have been preferred. That's, at best, akin to jaywalking.
Time to find another miracle play to get Sanders the nomination, because this one just went *poof*.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)but I don't believe the FBI investigation will = 0, do you? 
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders does not care about the Democratic Party or any down ballot candidates. Sanders is in this race solely for his selfish reasons and does not care about the Democratic Party or down ballot candidates. The concept that super delegates would support Sanders is simply sad and wrong.
BTW, I have never accepted the silly concept that Sanders is electable. Sanders has not been vetted and would be destroyed in a general election contest. There is a ton of good material to use against Sanders. The Clinton campaign has never needed to use such material because it has been clear to most people that Sanders would not be the nominee. The Clinton campaign has treated Sanders with kids gloves because she wants to make it easier for Sanders supporters to vote for her in the fall. Trump and Karl Rove would destroy Sanders if he was the nominee.
demwing
(16,916 posts)ignoring the fact that millions of people disagree, especially independents - the largest voting block in the country. More to the point - Hillary is under an FBI investigation!
Do you WANT Trump to become President?
onenote
(42,759 posts)over Sanders -- and the superdelegates that have endorsed Clinton -- are stupid.
Which isn't likely to be a particularly winning argument with those people.
demwing
(16,916 posts)But so caught up in the fight to get Hillary elected that they ignore the very real danger. They are willing to risk our future, because they refuse to acknowledge their candidate's legal issues, writing off an FBI investigation as a Republican smear.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And nominate the guy who lost? Why do you have such a problem with letting rather people choose?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders is not electable. Sanders has not been vetted and there is so much to use against Sanders that it is not even funny. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”
But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”
Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
There will be no indictment and it is sad that material that belongs on the Free Republic is being posted on DU
I think that Clinton is the only chance that the Democrats have of beating Trump.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Try again with someone who isn't a buffoon.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders has 100 of hours of tape on file for the course he taught where he praised Fidel Castro and other socialist/communist leaders that will make very effective attack ads. Heck, even Sanders appearance on Meet the Press is easy to turn into an attack ad. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/
Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015
And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.
Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.
Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:
Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.
...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.
Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.
You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 million to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.
I simply do not believe that Sanders is a viable general election candidate and the Democratic voters are agreeing with me.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)The only reasons Democrats didn't nominate him was their fear of what Republicans would say. If actually nominated they would support him. So would many Independents and some Republicans.
Everyone single one of his positions is popular. Every single one.
Free colleges. Higher minimum wage. Taxing the rich. They are all extremely popular.
His positions on guns is perfect for Americans current temperament. He's mostly anti-gun, with some reasonable positions for those that are pro-gun.
The Kochs are going to spend almost a billion on any candidate. It doesn't matter who is running.
Why are we so fucking afraid of what the Republicans think? It's time to stop that way of thinking. It's why the party keeps moving to the right and why we keep losing.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I live in the real world and it is very clear to me that the GOP would love to have Sanders be the nominee because Sanders would be a very weak general election candidate. There is so much material to use on Sanders that it is not funny.
The Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kid gloves because it has been clear that Sanders has no chance of being the nominee. The GOP would not be nice to Sanders and there is a ton of good stuff to use against Sanders.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Are you guys/gals new to politics?
JanetLovesObama
(548 posts)refuse to accept reality. Sanders is a one-trick pony and Trump would eat him alive.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)
amborin
(16,631 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)The only reason one candidate will not have enough to clinch the nomination is that there are superdelegates. But absent the superdelegates, one candidate will have won a majority of the delegates selected by voters/caucus attendees. There would have to be a cataclysmic event -- not merely the "possibility" of such an event, to make superdelegates go against the results of the primaries and caucuses in sufficient numbers to deny the nomination to the winner of the majority of the pledged delegates -- the delegates chosen by voters and caucus goers.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)
You're stuck on an incomplete equation. You're still on 1+2=3.
The real math, the math that makes Hillary an unnecessary risk, is (1+2)*FBI="who the hell knows?"
Hillary may currently be more popular as a primary candidate, but Bernie is tied nationally and has just over 45% of the delegates, and is far ahead of Clinton with Independents-the biggest voting block in the country. You're acting like he's 20 points down, it's nonsense!
Take Bernie's success, factor in Clinton's FBI risk, and Bernie is the clear YES.
onenote
(42,759 posts)will be enough to persuade superdelegates who were well aware of that variable when the committed to Clinton -- to reverse themselves.That's not going to happen.
Put another way, nothing has changed since the supers endorsed Clinton, other than she has persuaded a majority of the voters/caucuses goers to give her a majority (well, soon to be a majority) of pledged delegates notwithstanding that "variable".
demwing
(16,916 posts)and as we learned today, WILL be questioning Clinton.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511912938
I don't assume the outcome, but the very fact that the FBI is questioning Clinton introduces an element of risk to the election, one that does not exist with Bernie.
Add to that Bernie's success in National polls, his 45% of delegates (so far), and his great strength with Independents, and Hillary's institutional advantage does not justify even the POSSIBILITY of a poor FBI outcome.
Do you WANT Trump to win?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Sounds like they are about set to wrap it up and close it down.
onenote
(42,759 posts)anyone with half a brain would anticipate that at some point in the investigation the investigators would want to speak to Clinton. In other words, the supers made their commitments knowing about the "risk' that exists. So what has changed that would make them alter their commitments, particularly in light of the fact that the voters/caucus goers have indicated their preference for Clinton over Sanders?
And to answer what I would hope was a rhetorical question: of course I don't want Trump to win. It's the reason I've gotten into some heated disputes with some Sanders supporters who say they won't support Clinton if she's the nominee. While I voted for Sanders in the Virginia primary and donated to the campaign early on, I have always said that I would support Clinton with my vote and money if she is the nominee and it now appears all but certain she will get the nomination. What I don't understand is those people who say that they don't want Trump to win but will not commit to doing the most basic, helpful thing to keep him from winning -- voting for the Democratic nominee. Voting for Jill Stein may not be voting for Trump, but also is not doing everything one can do to stop Trump.
demwing
(16,916 posts)"anyone with half a brain would anticipate that"
So you don't deny the risk (I assume you have more than the 1/2 brain you cite as the minimum to anticipate the risk), you just don't care?
Do you WANT Trump to win?
onenote
(42,759 posts)If you want to keep stubbornly avoiding answering my question--what has changed that would cause the supers to change their position, that's your privilege.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I'm not predicting they will, only that they should, because the math points to unnecessary risk with Clinton.
Why would the SDs change? Because they lined up behind Clinton early, time has shown Bernie to be more viable, and some still give a damn about the middle class.
Why wouldn't they? Because Upton Sinclair was right, you can't (paraphrasing) convince SDs to understand the risk of a Clinton nomination when their pay checks depend on them not understanding.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)One of Sanders core issues is campaign finance and twice he has had letters about accepting donations over the limit, he isn't obeying the current rules. He may be indicted for breaking the campaign finance laws.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)When I read your title, I predicted your equation.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)and have decided she is NOT a risk! She has the majority of votes. People have spoken
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)So far she has gotten as many as 13 million votes (less than 2008, btw).
The total number of votes in the GE in 2012 for Obama was 65 million.
So, she's only at 20%, which is hardly a majority. What the other 80% do in the GE is unclear.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)There's your problem, even though "No one knows what the FBI variable will equal", you actually believe that Republican conspiracy theory. Its somewhat disconcerting that you don't even recognize a common Republican propaganda tactic that is cleverly designed to appeal to the anti-Hillary detractors on the left. The GOP doesn't need to work at tearing down Hillary to weaken their chief opponent, why waste time and money when they can easily trick some Democrats to do their dirty work for them. Look in the mirror if you want to see a glimpse of what "could have a devastating effect".
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)k8conant
(3,030 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And, like Clinton said of Obama in '08, a lot can happen between now and July PLUS the spectre of the FBI machinations.
But the juicy stuff is gonna be relatively silent before July, because the D insiders want Clinton to be the nominee as much as the R insiders do.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)primaries to now needing 67%. He's really closing that old gap. Any day now... just wait... you'll see...
The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)That's been out there for a couple of months now. Wouldn't super-delegates that would have been scared off have run away screaming by now?
And are we suggesting that there is ZERO risk in a Sanders nomination?
demwing
(16,916 posts)You can't argue with the math.
The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)...if you'll pardon the GWB reference. 
You may as well say "2 + 2 MIGHT be 5." You're basing it on a premise that may or may not happen.
And just because you HOPE something will happen doesn't mean it will. I HOPED America wouldn't be duped into the reality show scam that is Trump, but alas...
demwing
(16,916 posts)I stands for Investigations, including the FBI email server issue, or possibly the money laundering issue.
If those come out poorly, then X = Trump in the WH.
There's risk with every candidate. Some candidates present an acceptable level of risk, but Clinton sinks below the acceptable risk level. With Bernie running, she's an unnecessary risk.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)delegates. It will be over right after CA.
Just brace yourself for it, because that's what's going to happen.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)At which point, I would imagine the supers signal their intent to go with the candidate with the most delegates and Bernie concedes.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Keep at it.......
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Here are some superdelegates that I'm guessing won't want to switch ...
Zynx
(21,328 posts)He's the squishiest squishy target of all time. His supposed polling advantage is like Kasich's. It's a mirage.
Also, this post in embarrassing bullshit and I'm amazed you took the time to write it.
basselope
(2,565 posts)The guy's got the receipt from paying for access to her.
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...I hesitate to bring this up, but will anyway... if, by some twist, which won't happen, but let's just suppose Hillary becomes indisposed for some crime or suffers from a life-threatening health crisis. The Democrats will move Joe Biden in... her delegates would be "released" to Joe and the super-delegates would go the same way... Re-stating this is Hillary's win, and Bernie earned his runner-up status and should receive the nom if Hillary's out - but politics isn't always fair.
Corporate666
(587 posts)"While it's true that Sanders cannot win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination before the convention, the same is true for Hillary"
Wrong.
Bernie CANNOT mathematically win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary CAN. That's not the same at all.
I can guess the answer... "Yes, technically she can, but we know she isn't going to". In other words, it is highly improbable that she will get enough delegates, so improbable as to be realistically impossible. Right - just as it's so highly improbable for Sanders to get the majority of pledged delegates as to be impossible.
As for the FBI investigation... it has been ongoing for a long time. Super delegates are not required to declare who they will vote for - so while you imply that their declarations therefore don't count, I would claim otherwise. Yes, they are not required to declare, so the fact that they did declare their vote suggests they are pretty firmly in HRC's camp. Why else would they declare?
It's going to take a major, earth-shattering event to disqualify HRC from the nomination. And if that something were to happen, it is foolish for people to suggest the nomination would fall to Sanders. HRC could declare a VP pick or a running mate, and free her delegates to vote for that person. That person would have a MUCH higher chance of clinching the nomination than Sanders would.
In summary, you're living a pipe dream. It's over. Sanders lost. You have to accept reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.
dubyadiprecession
(5,722 posts)They're both acting looney! 
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)Sad. Pathetic. I'm at a loss
demwing
(16,916 posts)straightforward stuff
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)This is dumber than dumb. I can't even address the dumb adequately.
What in the hell? My god.
The FBI variable? Ok let's play with that stupid. I'll see your fbi variable and raise you a kooky socialist variable. How about a goofy white haired one note socialist? That'll play well in Peoria.
Jesus. Buddha. Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is dumb.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)At some point one or the other candidate will reach that number.
For Clinton that works out to 2026 - 1683 = 343
For Sanders that's 2026 - 1362 = 644
There are 1006 unpledged delegates remaining. That makes spit balling the percentages fairly easy.
Sanders has to win 64.whatever% of the remaining delegates.
Clinton has to win 34.whatever% of the remaining delegates.
