Replies

But, sigh, it looks like Hillary has won her party's nomination fair and square.

Well, I just checked the delegate count and she's almost 200 short as far as pledged delegates are concerned. She does have the 571 'superdelegates' though, but they are free to change their minds. Bernie would have to reel most of them in to have a chance. The idea that she won "fair and square" is only true if the party-awarded superdelegate system is fair. Without those superdelegates in play, this would be headed to a contested convention.

Well, I just checked the delegate count and she's almost 200 short as far as pledged delegates are concerned. She does have the 571 'superdelegates' though, but they are free to change their minds. Bernie would have to reel most of them in to have a chance.

The current count shows Hillary with 2199 pledged + 574 super and Bernie with 1827 pledged + 48 super. And 117 delegates still available. So, if you disqualify the superdelegates, Hillary wins a solid majority. But, if you allow the superdelegates, then, true, her pledged delegates only amount to a plurality.

Going into yesterday, with 694 delegates still to be awarded, I had been hoping Bernie would end up with a higher pledged count than Hillary. Then the 'Rat establishment (i.e., the superdelegates) would have had to choose between stealing the nomination for Hillary or honoring the will of the 'Rat voters. And that would have been fun to watch.

The idea that she won "fair and square" is only true if the party-awarded superdelegate system is fair.

It's not. As DJT said last night, it's a "rigged system".

Without those superdelegates in play, this would be headed to a contested convention.

Without the superdelegates, the 2383 threshold would have been lowered to the total number of pledged delegates, leaving Hillary with a solid majority.