STUNNING: If Super Delegates Were Apportioned, Clinton would only lead by 20 (UPDATE #2)

April 6, 2016

(Update 4/10/16)

O n Monday, I reported how “Meet the Press” created an entirely new number of Super Delegates in order to falsely/incorrectly claim that even by “Bernie’s own means of apportioning Super Delegates,” he’d still be way behind Hillary Clinton in the SD count. I have NO idea what they think Senator Sanders is requesting, but creating an entirely new Super Delegate system from scratch ain’t it. That made absolutely no sense, so I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet, and what I found was STUNNING!

I don’t know if #MtP just didn’t understand Senator Sanders’ request, or if they are just really bad at math, but somehow they created an additional 106 Super Delegates out of thin air (“106” is the total number of “unbound” delegates), awarding an additional 4 SD’s to Clinton and 99 SD’s to Sanders… not enough to close the over 400 SD lead Clinton already enjoys over Sanders.

As a refresher, “Super Delegates” are current & former elected Democratic officials and members of the DNC. “Elected officials” includes members of Congress, governors and former Presidents/VP’s. But members of the DNC can be anyone with power & influence (corporate leaders.) So it is no surprise they would be predisposed to favor Clinton. They were an invention following the chaotic DNC Convention of 1968. You’ll note that the GOP does not (yet) use “Super Delegates”. So there is no justifiable argument to allow these representatives of the voters in their state to vote differently than the voters of their state.

To be clear, what Senator Sanders is requesting is for the Super Delegate votes in each state to be distributed PROPORTIONALLY according to each candidate’s win percentage. So if the state votes 50/50 for Bernie vs Hillary, the SD’s should be split 50/50 as well. That seems fair , right? I have no idea what method #MtP used or thought Senator Sanders was proposing.

Presently, “Super Delegates” can vote any way they like regardless of how the voters of their state voted. I examined the vote totals (source) and how the Super Delegates were distributed, and what I found made me sick:

States Bernie won…

New Hampshire, Hillary takes all 6 (of 8) super delegates. (Sanders won 61% of vote) Colorado, Hillary takes all 8 of the 12 super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 59% of vote) Minnesota, Hillary takes 13 of 15 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 61.6% of vote) Oklahoma, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 51.9% of vote) Vermont, Hillary takes 3 of 9 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 86.1% of vote) Kansas, Hillary takes the only (1 of 4) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 67.7% of vote) Nebraska, Hillary takes all 3 (of 5) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 57.1% of vote) Maine, Hillary takes 3 of 4 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 64.3% of vote) Dems Abroad, Hillary takes 2 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 68.9% of vote) Michigan, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 49.8% of vote, Clinton 48.3%) Idaho, Hillary takes 1 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 78% of vote) Utah, Hillary takes 2 of 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 79.3% of vote) Alaska, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 81.6% of vote) Hawaii, Hillary takes 6 of 8 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 69.8% of vote) Washington, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 72.7% of vote) Wisconsin, Hillary takes 6 of the 7 (with 3 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 56% of vote) Wyoming, Hillary takes all 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 55.7% of vote)

By no standard I can imagine does ANY of that seem fair. How does the LOSER of a race come away with most… or in many cases ALL Super Delegates belonging to a particular state?

Number of states Bernie WON where he didn’t receive a single Super Delegate: SEVEN

States… win or lose… where Sanders was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NINETEEN

Iowa New Hampshire South Carolina Alabama Arkansas Colorado Georgia Tennessee Texas Virginia Louisiana Kansas Nebraska Michigan Northern Marianas Is. Illinois Missouri Washington Wyoming

States… win or lose… where Clinton was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NONE

If Super Delegates were apportioned by same percentage each candidate won:

Hillary: 205

Sanders: 185

——————————-

Difference: 20

(Note: “Pledged” delegates ALSO are not distributed proportionately by state. Difference in “PLEDGED” delegates if distributed proportionately: 237 [vs 290].)

Clinton’s Super Delegate lead would be cut to just TWENTY if they were awarded proportionally/fairly as Sanders suggests they should be. That’s a HUGE reduction from the FOUR-HUNDRED & THIRTY-NINE SD lead she currently enjoys as of this writing.

Notice, I did NOT award the winner of each state every Super Delegate as some might try to claim Sanders is asking, as if he’s trying to “game The System” to reap some sort of unfair advantage. No, I split the SD’s “proportionally” based on the percentage by which each candidate won. If anyone is benefiting from an unfair system here, it’s Clinton.

Now, reapportioning the Super Delegates alone doesn’t give Bernie the lead. We await the apportioning of the “Pledged” delegates for Wisconsin, but he currently trails by only slightly more than 200 delegates (with just under Two-Thousand delegates remaining). Subtracting those hundreds of undemocratically “gifted” Super Delegates awarded to Clinton definitely reveals her lead is FAR less insurmountable and her victory far less inevitable (not to mention: more reflective of the electorate.)

Senator Sanders has now won 17 states as compared to Clinton’s 20. He has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If Super Delegates are distributed according to win ratios, Sanders only needs to win the remaining states by an average of 57.03% in order to win the Democratic nomination. That’s about as close to a TIE as you’re gonna get.

Super Delegates are a “thumb on the scale” that allowed Clinton claim a 400+ “Delegate” lead before even a single vote was cast. The intent is obvious: to suppress support/turnout for her opponents by discouragement. They should not be allowed to announce whom they are supporting early. Direct anyone who says Bernie is “too far behind to win” to read this post.

Postscript: The GOP establishment behind the “Stop Trump” effort is assisting a dangerous “End Times” evangelical psychopath (Ted Cruz) win the GOP nomination simply because he is the only candidate with enough delegates to beat Donald Trump. It’s a dangerous game they are playing.

