The Caucus Race

Dunno what I was expecting really, but I attended the Democratic caucuses this morning.

Chaos. Many more people than they were prepared for, no parking, standing room only, confusion inside the gymnasium about who goes where or what we do. It was apparent from the start that Bernie supporters outnumbered Hillary supporters by about 2:1.

That's all I was curious about. I left after an hour.

Get to the heart of the matter: Was it BYOB?

Democratic Caucuses

Sanders leads by 51 points, with 7% reporting.
Candidates Vote Pct.
Bernie Sanders 110 75.3%
Hillary Clinton 36 24.7
Other 0 0.0

Yes, it was bring your own bifocals.

Hawaii: Bernie 71%, Hillary 29%

Washington: Bernie 73%, Hillary 27%

Alaska: Bernie 82%, Hillary 18%

Clinton's lead is now about 265 in elected delegates, and another 450 or so in "superdelegates." So much for democracy in the Democratic Party. I believe at this point that if Sanders loses at the convention, the plurality will be within the margin of non-elected  delegates.

I would love to find out what the popular vote has been in the Dem primaries, but no one seems to know...or care, maybe.

Clinton still has more VOTES than Bernie. More than Trump too.

But the early states are Southern and favorable to Clinton. Bernie will go a log way toward catching her before the convention, and that will give him the momentum at the convention. Some of those 457 super delegates might be encouraged to change their votes, since they're under no actually obligation to pledge for Clinton.

Both conventions this year will be very very interesting.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Clinton still has more VOTES than Bernie.

That's the data I was unable to find. Where did you get that?

I saw it on TV. Here's a pretty good summary of the current delegate situation.

There are numerous sites that provide delegate counts. I'm still trying to find one with the current count of the popular vote. In late February, with Clinton slightly ahead in delegates, Sanders had received fifty-five percent of the Total popular vote. I'd like to find out how that stands now.

Nobody reports popular vote in the primaries because the popular vote tally doesn't mean anything in the primaries.  Primary voters aren't voting for candidates, they're electing delegates.  Who vote for the candidates.

But I did see footage of a Clinton rally where she said she had the most votes of any candidate, R or D.  So I'm guessing her people have kept track of this.

Here's something about 2008. Four states didn't even report popular vote.
Here's Republican popular vote in 2016.
Ah, here we go: Democratic popular vote in 2016.  You're welcome.  And Hillary is correct, her 8,924,920 votes beats Trump's 7,811,245.  

Votes:
Clinton = 58.24%
Sanders = 41.76%

Delegates (non-Super):
Clinton = 56.04%
Sanders = 43.96%

Including Super-Delegates:
Clinton = 63.03%
Sanders = 36.97%

Thanks for that link. That's what I was looking for.
It may tighten up a bit now that the south is done, but I doubt that Bernie can overtake her. Fucking shame.

I understand how the process works, but I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of "super delegates." These are people who interest is the party, not the country.

As to Clinton's lead, look at the ratios. She has received 1.4 times the popular vote Sanders has (rounded). She has 1.3 times the number of regular delegates; which is reasonable. But she has over sixteen times the number of super delegates pledged to her. That is not reasonable. It shows a huge discrepancy between the people's vote and the party's vote.

But all of Clinton's super delegates were pledged way back before the campaign began.  They are free to change their pledge.  If Bernie carries the momentum going into the convention -- even if he's still behind in dedicated (earned) delegates -- a good number of Clinton's super delegates may decide that Bernie is a better candidate and switch their allegiance.

Remember, when Bernie started he had less than 3% of the support.  Now he's up to 44%... and gaining.

NoCoPilot wrote:

But all of Clinton's super delegates were pledged way back before the campaign began.  They are free to change their pledge.

Yes, I know how it works. But that fact that those delegates made their pledge before the campaign began is another indication that this may not be the right way to do things.

Oh undoubtedly.  I couldn't even tell you the logic behind HAVING super delegates.

Just for grins I graphed the growth of delegates for Clinton versus Sanders, to see if his trend line was closing in on Clinton's.

It's not.  They're actually diverging.  The states he's won recently are all tiny compared to Clinton's early wins.

In the exchange in that article, Metcalf states that Hillary would be the best choice, period, end of story.

There was a senior citizen at our district table who made the same argument. She said "Bernie is a socialist, he could never get elected. Trump would wipe the floor with him in the general election." Some young people at the table disagreed -- and surprisingly, about 1/3 of the caucus attendees were young. And they were all Sanders supporters.

Why? Because Sanders appeals to their sense of idealism. He wants to do more than win the presidency; he wants to reform a broken political system.

Yes, he's a socialist. That word doesn't have the same negative connotations to the young as it does to people who lived through McCarthyism.

Nor should it.