patrick.net

FFS, the APS called them and asked them who they were voting for. Maybe a few change, but she just won Jersey, the second biggest prize tonight. If hillary and bernie split all delegates today, the math ends any possiblity of Bernie winning.

Actually, it doesn't. Hillary will have to take two-thirds of the remaining delegates to get the nomination before the convention. Otherwise, it's all up to the super delegates.

yes, and if you flip a coin one hundred times, you could get tails all 100 times. Only, you never will.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

yes, and if you flip a coin one hundred times, you could get tails all 100 times. Only, you never will.

Are you saying that you have evidence that most of the super delegates will vote for Clinton. If so, please show your math.

Without data, there is no way you can calculate the probability of the super delegate's votes. Simply pulling assertions out of your ass is not a mathematically sound method.

I have no idea how the super delegates will vote, and no one else except possibly the super delegates themselves do. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me your math.

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that you have evidence that most of the super delegates will vote for Clinton. If so, please show your math.

the AP called them and asked them. That is called evidence. After tonight, Hillary will need around 200 of the 700+ super delegates, of which nearly 500 have already said they are voting for her. Dan8267 says

Simply pulling assertions out of your ass is not a mathematically sound method.

I have no idea how the super delegates will vote, and no one else except possibly the super delegates themselves do. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me your math.

they have said what they intend to do. show an election where they differed meaningfully from that one time in history... you can't.

Dan8267 says

Without data, there is no way you can calculate the probability of the super delegate's votes.

It's pedant night on patnet!

"Trump's not racist. He believes Mexicans are shit, but "Mexican" isn't a race, so nyah nyah nyah."

"Sir, that's not a 'gun' you're pointing me, it's a 'rifle'" BAM oops.

“Let's have sex!" said the beautiful woman to Blurtman. Blurtman gasped: "It's not sex, you stupid bitch! It's sexual intercourse!"

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

the AP called them and asked them. That is called evidence.

Oh honey, that's not how the process works. The super delegates don't have to vote the way they tell the AP they plan on voting.
1. They can change their mind.
2. They can lie for political reasons.
3. There will be discussion at the convention which will be taken into account by the super-delegates when they finally do cast their votes.

You certainty that the superdelegates must vote one way is simply wrong. You may surreptitiously be right about how they vote, but not for the right reason.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

show an election where they differed meaningfully from that one time in history... you can't.

I have no idea of what you are asking, but clearly you do not understand what a super delegate is, when and why they were created, or how they work.

I suggest you read A Brief History of Superdelegates.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

FFS, the APS called them and asked them who they were voting for.

Good. Did the AP tell us who exactly they spoke to? How do I know the AP reporters did so and didn't dial it in like that Jason guy from the NYT a while back? Why run this story just prior to CA Primary?

It wouldn't matter who the associated press talked to. The super delegates don't have to make up their minds until they vote, and they aren't obligated to vote any particular way. The super delegates are suppose to talk to each other at the delegates to decide on that day if it is in the party's best interest to vote for a candidate with fewer popular votes in the primary in order to prevent a repeat of the 1972 defeat when the primary voters picked a candidate who was not electable in the general election. That's the sole purpose of super delegates.

That said, I think they will most likely vote for Hillary, but it's in the party's interest to support Bernie since he will definitely defeat Trump and Hillary has a very good chance of losing to Trump. It comes down to strategic voting vs. cronyism. I don't hold much hope for the Democratic Party, but they may do the sensible thing.

let's see landslide for Clinton in New Jersey and California tonight... So yeah, sure the superdelegates who already said they are voting for Clinton will change their minds!

In light of Hillary's savage beatdown of Ahab in California and New Jersey this evening - "clubbed him like a baby seal" seems the right expression - it's time for the Democratic Party to come together and allocate all superdelegates to The Bern, who got far fewer votes this primary season, but they were better votes - Hillary's votes being too "nubbly" and not from the best people.

I hereby congralutate Ahab Bitterman, the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States!

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

let's see landslide for Clinton in New Jersey and California tonight

Whether or not you call something a landslide, the bottom line is that Hillary FAILED to secure enough delegates from NJ and CA to win. This is a historic fact now, not an opinion or a guess. And those delegates are included in the statistics in the original post.

Here's the breakdown for those two states.

Put simply, there is now a zero percent chance that the election will be decided by anyone except the super delegates at the convention. It is mathematically impossible for either candidate to prevent this. Hillary did not win. Neither did Sanders. It was an effective tie. The super delegates will appoint the nominee.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

So yeah, sure the superdelegates who already said they are voting for Clinton will change their minds!

If you think this is implausible, then you are an idiot. But hey, prove me wrong. Show the precise calculations you have that the super delegates will vote one way. Show the math. You can't because that math does not exist. You are simply trying to influence the results by cheerleading for Hillary, but this is irrational and stupid because none of the super delegates read PatNet -- they are too rich to spend their time here -- and so nothing you say will influence their decisions, but you are so brainwashed into thinking that if you keep saying something it will become true that you cannot understand that principle does not apply here.

Ok, Delusional Dan.

If your candidate had won big last night, there would be a very slim case to make: He has the momentum, he is better to beat Trump, etc. etc.

What happened last night? Bernie didn't merely lose.... Nope. He got beaten like a red headed step child in an Alabama trailer park. 60/40 in both Jersey and California two very big important states.

Hillary is likely approaching 4 million more votes in any fair analysis of the primary, and has 300+ more pledged delegates.

So, you claim the "system is unfair" and yet what you propose is to disavow the entire vote? there is NO SCENARIO, short of Hillary withdrawing from the race and releasing her delegates, that gets Bernie to a win. Period. Fullstop.

Calling me "brainwashed" "simply trying to influence" "chearleading for hillary" just makes you look stupid and childish.

You have a choice, quit being delusional and butthurt, become an adult. Or not.

Bernie has the same choice. Nobody gives a damn fuck about asshole Ralph Nader today, he should think about that, as should you.

When was the last time a candidate did not win enough pledged delegates for the dems?

2008 Clinton v Obama

Dan8267 says

Put simply, there is now a zero percent chance that the election will be decided by anyone except the super delegates at the convention. It is mathematically impossible for either candidate to prevent this. Hillary did not win. Neither did Sanders. It was an effective tie. The super delegates will appoint the nominee.

@Dan8267, isn't it funny how every pundit insisted Trump wouldn't get enough elected delegates to avoid a contested convention; but they are spreading a myth that Hillary just earned enough elected delegates to be a shoe-in without special delegates (unpledged/super/otherwise unelected).

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Ok, Delusional Dan.

Oh, you called me delusional. OK, you win. No amount of evidence or reasoning that trump that. Clearly you really are sharing your intelligence.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

If your candidate had won big last night,

I never stated anything remotely like that. I do not have to defend arguments that I did not make and do not agree with. Do you have to justify why it's good to drown puppies in a river when you made no such claim?

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Bernie didn't merely lose.... Nope. He got beaten like a red headed step child in an Alabama trailer park.

That is your opinion and it is based on your desire for Hillary to be a candidate. In contrast rational persons like me do not make false statements about how things are just to reflect how we think things should be.

Your statement is nothing more than a pompous and disrespectful brag and assholes like you are exactly why many people who would vote for Bernie will not vote for Hillary costing the Democrats not only the White House but House and Senate seats as well.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Hillary is likely approaching 4 million more votes in any fair analysis of the primary,

The primary does not pick the president. The general election does. Because of that it makes perfect sense for the superdelegates to vote for Bernie who has far more support than Hillary in the general voter pool. Whether or not you want Hillary elected is irrelevant. It is a fact that Bernie has a strong lead over Hillary in the general election polls.

The sole purpose of superdelegates is to vote strategically when the pledged delegates do not reflect the candidate preferred by the general election voters.

lostand confused says

When was the last time a candidate did not win enough pledged delegates for the dems?

errc says

2008 Clinton v Obama

Correct.

Furthermore, in the 2008 election the polls showed that Obama stood a better chance against McCain than Hillary did. So even in that election the superdelegates were voting strategically even though that happened to be on the side of the candidate with more pledged delegates. It is quite reasonable to suspect that if the pledged candidate counts were reversed and Hillary had a small lead, the superdelegates would have still nominated Obama in order to defeat McCain.

The pledge delegate count certainly does influence superdelegates, but it is not the only thing that influences superdelegates. The general election polls also does.

thunderlips11 says

@Dan8267, isn't it funny how every pundit insisted Trump wouldn't get enough elected delegates to avoid a contested convention; but they are spreading a myth that Hillary just earned enough elected delegates to be a shoe-in without special delegates (unpledged/super/otherwise unelected).

Not only that, but a few months ago we were almost certain that the GOP convention would be either brokered or contested and Hillary was inevitable. Now it's the Democratic convention that absolutely is going to be unresolved and Trump is the nominee in every way except official since Cruz dropped out.

Trump was a joke candidate that no one took seriously. We -- and I include myself -- all believed that the Republican voters were going to do what happened in the last election and keep jumping from one candidate to another until all the non-establishment ones dropped out. Remember all the clowns that were favored in 2012 until Romney, who no one liked, was finally settled on? Well, anyway, we were wrong. Trump won the Republican primary in a landslide, and yes, landslide is the right term for getting 1536 delegates when only 1237 were needed in a 17-way race! Shit, that's a landslide.

So people who think Hillary doesn't stand a damn good chance of losing to Trump are fools. Hell, even I'll take Trump over Clinton. I'd much rather have 4 years of Trump than 8 years of Hillary. In many issues Trump is actually better than Hillary. As much of a loose cannon and idiot as Trump is, Clinton has a long history of supporting evil policies. Trump has no history, but at least his claimed positions are better than Hillary on most social issues and on outsourcing and H1B visas.

In any case, every single poll ever done shows Bernie doing better against Trump than Hillary will. Maybe Hillary will win the general election. I'd give it a 60% chance, but that's not much better than a coin toss. The superdelegates will be failures if they take that chance when an alternative is guaranteed to give them not only the White House but also more House and Senate seats.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

So, you claim the "system is unfair" and yet what you propose is to disavow the entire vote?

The system is unfair because it disavows most of the vote right now. Superdelegates make is less unfair by taking into account the voters prevented from voting in the primaries and caucuses.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

here is NO SCENARIO, short of Hillary withdrawing from the race and releasing her delegates, that gets Bernie to a win. Period. Fullstop.

Another factually incorrect statement. Both candidates will go to the convention and plead their cases to the superdelegates. In fact, the pleading has surely started already. The superdelegates will then vote. Either candidate can win. That's a fact. If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong.

If the superdelegates cannot decide on the nominee, i.e. a stalemate, the pledged candidates will become unpledged and voting will continue until a candidate is elected.

One can honestly and accurately say that unless Bernie drops out of the race, Hillary cannot get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. Period. Fullstop.

See, it works both ways. That's what makes it an effective tie.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

You have a choice, quit being delusional and butthurt, become an adult. Or not.

Honey, just because I'm not going to vote for the candidate you want does not mean I'm delusional or bitter. Every statement I've made is factual and accurate. I have not even expressed any opinions on this thread regarding the candidates, unlike you. I simply said three facts.
1. The superdelegates can vote for Bernie.
2. Doing so would be consistent with the sole purpose of superdelegates.
3. It is strategic for the superdelegates to vote for Bernie because the general election polls show that he has a greater lead over Trump than Hillary does.

None of these statements are opinions. They are all verifiable facts. If you disagree with any of these statements, you are wrong. You are entitled to your own opinions no matter how vile and ignorant they are, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

But hey, if you are as smart as you think you are, prove any of those three statements wrong. It should be easy if you're not completely fucking wrong about everything.

Factually speaking, it is not impossible that Bernie could be the nominee. Then again, factually speaking I could be the nominee too.

In reality, one of these events has a probability of 0.001 and one is 0.0000001.

Hillary could be indicted, get a terminal disease, or die.

She could withdraw and throw her support to Bernie, or Biden.

Other than a black swan event, Bernie has utterly lost, and last nights devastating numbers were a TKO for any rational path forward against Hillary.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

In reality, one of these events has a probability of 0.001 and one is 0.0000001.

Show your math or you get no credit. Anyone can pull numbers out of their ass. I doubt you even used pencil and paper to arrive at those numbers.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Hillary could be indicted, get a terminal disease, or die.

She could withdraw and throw her support to Bernie, or Biden.

Or both candidates could stay healthy and in the race and the superdelegates could decide that risking a Trump presidency is simply too great and nominate Bernie to prevent that from happening. You have no line of reasoning, no evidence, no statistics to say that this is improbable.

In fact, I would even argue that stating a probability of a non-recurring event is meaningless. All events have either zero or one probability because all events either do or do not happen. The only thing that is meaningful to talk of probabilities between zero and one is for recurring events like flipping a coin and counting the number of times it lands on heads and tails. If you cannot count an outcome and form a ratio to the sum of all possible outcomes, then the word probability has no meaning.

Here's the thing about math. You can't fake it.

Dan8267 says

Or both candidates could stay healthy and in the race and the superdelegates could decide that risking a Trump presidency is simply too great and nominate Bernie to prevent that from happening. You have no line of reasoning, no evidence, no statistics to say that this is improbable.

Dan8267 says

In fact, I would even argue that stating a probability of a non-recurring event is meaningless. All events have either zero or one probability because all events either do or do not happen. The only thing that is meaningful to talk of probabilities between zero and one is for recurring events like flipping a coin and counting the number of times it lands on heads and tails. If you cannot count an outcome and form a ratio to the sum of all possible outcomes, then the word probability has no meaning.

which all goes to show you are either delusional or a moron.

Ok, it's 50/50 whether or not the delegates flip to Bernie. I'll take that bet for $50000. will you?

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

which all goes to show you are either delusional or a moron.

The irony is that only a moron would make such a non-argument in response to my posts that are detailed and heavily supported with evidence.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Ok, it's 50/50 whether or not the delegates flip to Bernie. I'll take that bet for $50000. will you?

If I were to bet on politics, I would have bet that Trump would not have been the nominee for the GOP a year ago. That's why I don't bet on politics. You can't tell what's going to happen in this stupid, stupid country.

I only take bets that I'm mathematically sure to win.

That said, my acceptance or refusal to bet says nothing about the reality of whether or not the superdelegates will vote for Sanders. Nor does your proposition or anything you say actually refute my statements that
1. The superdelegates can vote for Bernie.
2. Doing so would be consistent with the sole purpose of superdelegates.
3. It is strategic for the superdelegates to vote for Bernie because the general election polls show that he has a greater lead over Trump than Hillary does.

and now

4. You have no mathematical model for calculating the probability of the superdelegates' votes.

For you to say that any of these four statements is a wrong would be a lie on your part.

The premise of this thread is incredibly stupid.

This entire site is a simluation: There are 8-10 actual humans posting here; the remainder of the posts are the product of AI bots, part of an experiment to figure out how stupid you can be before someone finally cracks and says "This must be fake!"

When Hillary or Donald is inaugurated next January, there will be threads arguing that the Trump (or Clinton) administration provides the perfect opportunity for Sanders to assume the Oval Office within weeks.

All they need to do is kill the superdelegates with kryptonite, and Bernie is a shoo in.