Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

strategery blunder

(4,225 posts)
28. A lot of delegate trackers aren't counting all of WA's delegates.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:45 PM
Apr 2016

Some delegate trackers still only have 25 delegates for Bernie, 9 for Hillary coming from WA.

However WA has 101 pledged delegates to give.

Technically these delegates are allocated at follow-up caucus conventions (which is how Bernie recently gained delegates in NV--Hillary's precinct delegates didn't show up at the later county/LD conventions). However it is possible to estimate them ahead of time, as the media customarily does for states like IA and NV.

If the media applied the same extrapolation to WA's delegates, based upon the initial caucus results, Bernie would have about 73 and Hillary about 28. That would almost certainly turn out to be correct within 2 delegates. Most delegate trackers, however, have not done this for some reason.

The ones that do would show Bernie within around 212. The ones that don't...well that's probably where you're getting your 250 number from.

(I live in WA state, so not having our results "counted" in the national delegate trackers is quite annoying to me.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

IT'S HAPPENING!!! ViseGrip Apr 2016 #1
Seriously, you guys are absurd in your stubborn insistence on ignoring the math. Squinch Apr 2016 #2
The "Super Delegates" are not guaranteed or pledged to any candidate. They are free to switch. imagine2015 Apr 2016 #6
They have a name for the winners in the world! SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #9
Ooh yeah deacon blues! Love a good Steeley Dan random line! JudyM Apr 2016 #20
Yes, yes, those super delegates are bought and paid for, so they WON'T IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #13
It's gonna shrink a lot more this month Politicalboi Apr 2016 #3
and the Clintons are throwing shiny objects at the media!! grasswire Apr 2016 #4
Nevada may eventually change CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #5
Ouch SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #7
It's actually probably 4 delegates better than that... lostnfound Apr 2016 #8
But that doesn't include her 52,312 superdelegates silly! #Math! jillan Apr 2016 #10
They both started at 0 pledged delegates... timlot Apr 2016 #11
Ummmm, in case you didn't hear--California is going to allow the indies to vote Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #26
Maryland paulthompson Apr 2016 #12
Don't look now but Bernie's running out of states to catch up. oasis Apr 2016 #14
On March 8, it was +212 delegates... SidDithers Apr 2016 #15
That when she had the conservative Republican south, by far her strongest region. imagine2015 Apr 2016 #16
Regarding the superdelegates... paulthompson Apr 2016 #17
I'm thinking real hard......................nope, not happening n/t Sheepshank Apr 2016 #21
the important part is " . . . if Sanders wins a majority . . . " DrDan Apr 2016 #24
Delegate count: Hillary won: 1280, super: 469, tot: 1749; Sanders won: 1030, super: 31, Tot: 1061 Bill USA Apr 2016 #18
Why are you including delegates that are not pledged to Hillary or Bernie? imagine2015 Apr 2016 #19
tell us another story - please SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #22
You get an F in math. The superdelegates do not vote until it goes to the convention. You cannot pad Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #27
looks to me like 250 as of 6:14 this evening DrDan Apr 2016 #23
A lot of delegate trackers aren't counting all of WA's delegates. strategery blunder Apr 2016 #28
"Inconceivable !" GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #25
Conceivable! imagine2015 Apr 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary's delegate lead s...»Reply #28