The Delegate Count from All 50 States Will Determine the Nominee.

[MineralMan]

That is the only thing that matters. Putting too much emphasis on the first four states to vote makes no sense. The delegates from those states will be divided proportionally, based on the results from the caucuses and primaries.

If you want to see how things are going, once the caucuses and primaries are held, check here after each one:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

That chart will be updated following each primary event.

Nothing else matters in determining who the nominee will be. We won't know for sure for some time to come.

[Renew Deal]

1. Really?

You learn something new every day.

[MineralMan]

4. What I've learned is that a lot of people don't actually understand that.

If you do, that's very good. In that case, this post is not aimed at you. Perhaps others will find it useful. Who knows?

[Nitram]

27. I agree, MM.

Some years winning the first two primaries helps candidates get desperately needed funding. That is not an issue this year.

[Gothmog]

2. Greenpapers is a good source on delegates and conventions

[merrily]

3. Yes, but the first few states can be game changers.

[snoringvoter]

6. Yep, when the Big Mo is a-rollin', people are going to want to join the winning team

The winning team being Team Bernie.

They will see this as a way to get out of the same old shit we've been living for the past 36 years.

[MineralMan]

7. They can, but are not necessarily so.

It's always interesting to watch the early primary events, but they do not tell the whole story. That's especially true this year. Delegates from IA and NH will be divided fairly equally, it appears. Once the primaries begin, I turn my attention to the delegate count after each primary or caucus is held.

There's a long way to go before the Convention, and many states that are not Sanders strongholds that have large delegations to the Convention.

Of course, it will all be interesting to observe. For me, supporting the eventual nominee is my prime consideration, and I will be happy to do so enthusiastically, regardless of the result.

[merrily]

10. We agree. They can.

If I meant "necessarily so," I would have posted They will be game changers, not they can be game changers.

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, OK.

We don't disagree, then.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. Lol.

Winning the early states is better than losing them.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, of course, but in close primary races,

the delegates end up being divided fairly equally. Some think momentum is everything. I disagree. More important this year will be the primary voting in many states which have very different demographics than IA and NH.

This year, neither of those states will be a bellwether, I predict.

[JonLeibowitz]

16. You mentioned momentum when I didn't. Where I'm from, that's a strawman.

Your OP made the obvious statement that delegates from all 50 states will matter. I just wanted to mention another obvious fact, that winning states is preferable (for obtaining the nomination) to losing. Also true for early states. I thought some people might not know that, as you assumed a sub-5th grade understanding of civics when you thought out the audience for this post.

[MineralMan]

25. You post as you think best. I do the same.

DU is open to all posters. Thanks for your interest in my thread.

[Krytan11c]

8. Also

Water is wet. In case you didn't know.

[MineralMan]

11. Thank you for stating the obvious and agreeing with me.

For many, understanding of the actual process is less complete. I hope to help with that in this primary season. Thanks for your kick of this thread. That will help more people to see it.

[Krytan11c]

13. I know you are trying to help.

But assuming people don't know how the primary process works, especially on a board which is mostly filled with politically active people, is insulting.

[MineralMan]

14. DU has many members who read but do not post.

Many of them have recommended posts like this and some have even replied with thanks for linking to a site that is an accurate source of information on the process.

I do not necessarily write just for active posters on DU to read. Thank you for your interest.

[Nitram]

28. Krytan, I know you're trying to be cleverly snarky.

But assuming everybody finds that amusing is insulting.

[TM99]

15. And if the delegates defy the will of the voters

then all hell breaks loose.

So your point is?

[MineralMan]

18. They won't defy the will of the voters.

That's a worry that isn't reasonable. Pledged delegates are bound to vote according to the primary results in their state. Unpledged, or "superdelegates" can vote as they think best. That is the system we have in place, and it will be followed.

If you're concerned about the unpledged delegates in your state, you are free to communicate your concerns to them. Your state's Democratic Party website will tell you who they are, or you can look up who is selected for your state at:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Just click the link for your state to learn how unpledged delegates are chosen there.

We're not going to have delegates to the convention breaking the rules for nominee selection. It's not going to happen.

[TM99]

30. I know the process.

I also hear DNC surrogates on the news shows suggesting that Biden or Kerry will need to get in if Sanders is winning primary after primary.

You have far too much faith in the establishment being honorable. I see that they are not already.

[MineralMan]

31. I doubt very much that any replacement for Clinton will be needed.

As for my faith in the Democratic Party being fair and honorable, I have a good deal of faith in that. I've been involved in Democratic electoral politics for a very long time. The nomination for President is carried out in a very fair way. It all depends on how people vote in caucuses and primaries and is very well designed.

Some people object to superdelegates, but even that is done to assure a fair outcome at the convention. Those delegates can choose for whom to vote at the convention. All of the rest are based on the votes at caucuses and conventions, and make up about 85% of the total delegate count.

What will decide who the nominee is will be the voting in all 50 states, and nothing else. It will be obvious where things are going following the March 1 caucuses and primaries and will be more and more apparent as additional primaries are held. As each state votes, the distribution of delegates will be transparent and obvious. Anyone will be able to watch and see the count and do their own calculations.

At some point before the convention date, the nominee will be known when the delegate count for that candidate exceeds the majority required to get the nomination. It's unlikely to be anything near a tie, actually, and the superdelegates won't be the deciding vote in 2016.

Right now, everyone's focused on the first two states to hold caucuses or primary elections. They will probably be closely divided, and delegates will be assigned based on the proportions of voters. And so on, throughout the primary season. We are not going to know who the nominee will be following them. It will be nearly tied.

[stonecutter357]

17. K&R!

[MineralMan]

20. Thanks. I try to explain the system as best I can.

[stonecutter357]

21. good luck.

[lunamagica]

19. K&R.

[MineralMan]

23. Thank you.

So many other states have far more delegates to send to the convention that it has always amazed me that people focus on two small states, just because their primaries or caucuses are first. That has never made any sense to me, really.

I know that there's an argument about the results affecting voters in later primaries, but that effect is relatively small, and may be especially so this election year.

It's interesting that people have replied in the thread, implying that my information isn't important. In reality, it's crucial if one is to understand the primary process. It appears that many don't understand it well, so I keep trying to direct people's attention to the actual process, rather than temporary things.

Looking at even just the March 1 primaries and caucuses, it's easy to see that far more delegates are at stake in those than the total of all of the February states. And yet, we're not even talking about that much so far. IA and NH are blips on the screen, compared to those.

[underpants]

22. Super Tuesday will determine much of the races for both the parties

A big chunk of delegates will be allotted on that day. Will momentum from earlier primaries and caucuses play a factor? Could be. This is a long haul race.

[MineralMan]

24. Yes, and March 1 is not much more than a month away.

Yet most people seem to be focused solely on the first two events. No doubt that those states will have some influence, but how much is open to question. We won't really know until March 2. We'll have a pretty clear picture after that date, though, on how the two campaigns are doing. Two, because Martin O'Malley doesn't appear to have met the 15% threshold in any state, and probably won't win any delegates at all from any of the early states.

This race is between Hillary and Bernie, and always has been. Either would be a good nominee, and either will have my full support for the general election.

[underpants]

26. The press is focused on Iowa because they are lazy.

They follow the book and try to whittle down the options so they have to do less work. That's saying something because they do almost no work.

Iowa only really tells you the strength of the campaign organization. They don't just have to generate and follow up support, they have to make sure every single person actually gets to the convention center or high school gym or Bessie's pot luck dinner and STAY THERE for 2-4 hours. There is no pop in voting.

New Hampshire - which will suddenly be all the focus the day after Iowa - is a wild card. They are completely independent and libertarian in both parties.

I agree. Either will be a great nominee. Just give me the name and let me start knocking on doors.

[MineralMan]

29. Well, the real reason they're focused on Iowa is

because that's the first state to caucus. It will happen soonest, and there's a lot of interest in that. It's the most current news. Once that's done, they'll start more coverage of NH and then SC and then NV. They'll also start looking at the Super Tuesday primaries after IA and NH are finished.

News media covers news. They know that people's attention spans are short. It's what they do, and they spend as much time on it as the public's interest can stand, and then some.

They rarely cover the actual mechanics of the primary season. That's boring to their audiences, I guess. Only as the national conventions draw nearer do they begin to report on delegate counts and likely outcomes.

People who depend on the news media for election coverage get a very narrow, time-limited view. That has been the case for as long as I can remember. Fortunately, we have sites like http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D where we can watch the mechanics and learn how the system actual operates.

Those who are pointing out that everyone knows that are wrong. Everyone most certainly does not know that. They should, so I post occasionally about that website and what can be learned there. I will continue to do that.

[ljm2002]

32. Of course...

...the delegates from all 50 states are what counts in the long run.

Of course to get to the long run, you must prevail in the short run.

If you are an insurgent candidate, with little name recognition nationally, then you absolutely positively must concentrate on the early states, because that is how you can build momentum.

If Bernie should pull off a win in all 4 early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) -- or even in just the first 3 states, and keep it close in South Carolina -- then he will have that all-important momentum.

Personally I think his campaign has strategized brilliantly so far. We will soon see whether it is enough to give him the kind of momentum he will need to win the nomination. I certainly don't know, although I do have high hopes.