Politico: Bernie's longshot victory strategy

[jg10003]

This is what I have been saying, and it is possible

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847?lo=ap_f1

....But Sanders campaign aides say they’ll be able to keep Clinton from reaching the 2,383 delegate magic number she’d need to clinch the nomination at the convention and, by being close enough, convince the superdelegates to switch, as some did when they changed from Clinton to Barack Obama in 2008.

“Absent Hillary getting out of the race, I think there’s no way that this race isn’t going to be very close in pledged delegates, even if we succeed,” Devine said. “The best outcome for us, given the nature of the system, is a very close advantage at the end."

Here are the details of how it can be done:

There are 4051 pledged delegates and 713 super-delegates: total = 4764 total delegates.

(4764/2) + 1 = 2383 delegates to win the nomination.

Bill Clinton & Wasserman-Schultz are SD, therefore Hillary can clinch the nomination with 2381 PD (58.776% of total PD)

4051 - 2381 = 1670
1670 + 1 = 1671.
Bernie needs 1671 PD (41.250% of total PD) in order to prevent Hillary from clinching the nomination with just pledged delegates.

Of course 1671 PD is just the theoretical minimum that Bernie needs, this would still put Hillary just one SD short of the nomination. However, if Bernie were to win 1771 PD (Hillary wins 2280 PD) then Hillary would be 100 SD short of the nomination.

I know some will say that the super-delegates should not over rule the primary results. My answer to them is:
1) According the the DNC, the purpose of the super-delegates is to make sure the best candidate is nominated. And the best candidate is the one with the best chance of winning the general election.

2) The DNC made the rules. Bernie using the rules to his advantage is just good politics. Bernie is politician, not a saint. Saints don't get elected.

3) Having a President Sanders is more important to our future then the nomination process.

4) THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON; If Trump is the GOP nominee then he must be stopped. Although I support Bernie, if by the time of the convention it appears that Clinton is the stronger candidate against Trump, then she should be nominated (even if Bernie has more pledged delegates). The country can survive another Third Way corporatist. We cannot survive a strongman dictator. Anyone who thinks that the United sates could not have a Francisco Franco,
Ferdinand Marcos, or Vladimir Putin is very wrong.

[Rebkeh]

1. Great post, thanks

Except for #4. I completely disagree, Clinton is not a stronger candidate than Trump, she will be weakened by him should they go head to head. On a retail level they may be able to appear to be stronger but in reality? No.

Bernie is our only chance.

I said this in another post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1505303

Clinton supporters cannot see why Trump can easily take them down, fighting dirty will never beat Trump. They think dirty tricks and triangulation tactics are strengths.

They are not.

Edited to add: if they think that co-opting Trump would work, good luck. Even if they manage it, they would lose even more liberals and progressives. They cannot keep their base and co-opt Trump.

It's possible that Trump, should he become president, would be easy to control within the beltway environment (government is not a business and Mr. Thin Skin is transparently insecure).

The possibly bi-partisan oligarchy would either go down with him, or lose. You can't beat someone with no conscience, not by the usual tactics. I strongly believe Bernie is our only chance.

They need us and we know better.

Unless they buy him, in which case the public outrage would be unprecedented

[jg10003]

3. I said IF Clinton is the stronger candidate by the time of the convention. I agree that Bernie is...

a much stronger opponent of Trump, and that it will be clear to the super-delegates at the time of the convention (July 25-28). However, if at the end of July it appears that Clinton has a better chance to beat Trump then she should be the nominee.

[Rebkeh]

4. She can't beat him

Let me put it this way, the democratic party can't beat him with her at the helm.

This isn't a football game, or basketball, or any sport. It's more like tug-of-war. The democratic party can't pull the center in the correct direction as it is, they aren't even trying at this point. They feign a leftward façade with social issues, on which they are good, but on everything else? No.

If Trump gets in there, it's done. He will pull us all into the mud.

[LonePirate]

2. I'm not sure it is a good idea to advocate for SDs overthrowing the majority of pledged delegates.

We all want Bernie to win but we should not advocate super delegates giving a middle finger to whichever candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates. If that happens, the nominee would be tainted with all sorts of scars from an undemocratic process that ignored the will of the voters. This is very, very dangerous for the party and its nominee.

[corbettkroehler]

5. Agreed but...

In principle, I'm with you. I gave it some thought, though. What this strategy would overthrow would be the fact that the superdelegates endorsed months ago, before Bernie entered the race. That is the undemocratic part.

[davidpdx]

6. An interesting analysis

Back in 2008 Grantcart use to put up numbers during the primaries where things stood. I'm not sure what the heck happened to him. I haven't seen him in ages.